Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Lottery Awards

Gillian Merron: What steps he has taken to assess the equity of the distribution of lottery awards across the country. [123668]

The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): We require distributors to take into account the need to ensure that all parts of the country have access to funding and the need to reduce economic and social deprivation. We monitor lottery awards given to each constituency and remain keen to encourage a fairer distribution of funding across the country.

Gillian Merron: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the distributing bodies press ahead with redressing imbalances throughout the country, so that Lincoln people can see the gap close between the welcome £9.5 million that they have so far received and the national average of £11.9 million?

Kate Hoey: Yes, that is exactly why we set up the report into lottery funding for coalfield areas and former mining communities. Last week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a package of measures designed to ensure that those areas receive greater benefit from national lottery money. We have to try to get more equitable funding, while recognising that some areas of greater economic and social deprivation have not been as proactive as they might have been about getting their forms filled in and so attracting benefit from the lottery. Now, with the new powers under the National Lottery Act 1998, we are seeing changes and increases; it is all about equity.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Further to the point that I made at the Department's previous Question Time, has the Minister had time to consider the amount and proportion of funds going to outer London boroughs? Understandably, much of the money that goes to London goes to great national institutions, and although we accept that the quality of applications is an important

factor, there is a feeling among those living on the outskirts of London that we are not being dealt with correctly.

Kate Hoey: I understand how the hon. Gentleman feels. The amount of money that has gone to my constituency of Vauxhall seems huge, because it has several major tourist attractions along the River Thames; however, little money has gone into community projects. Furthermore, if a constituency contains the head office of an organisation, that constituency is credited with having received the money given to the organisation, even if it is spent in many other places and none is spent in the constituency itself.

Helen Jones: My hon. Friend touches on an important point about how we assess the sums that go to each constituency. Will she discuss with the National Lottery Charities Board how it arrives at its figures? Many of the grants included in figures sent to me were made not in my constituency but in that of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts). Although I have no objection to my hon. Friend's constituency receiving grants, I would prefer that they were not included in the allocation for my constituency. Will my hon. Friend the Minister also examine the assessment of ticket sales, whereby tickets sales in town centres are often allocated to only one constituency, even though they are bought by people from several neighbouring constituencies?

Kate Hoey: As I said, I fully understand hon. Members' concerns. It is frustrating to be told that one's constituency is receiving a lot of money when one knows that it is not, in fact, going there. Such matters will be the subject of our on-going discussions and of the negotiations surrounding the award of the new franchise. The ticket-buying public want to know where their money goes, and they want the figures to be clear and objective; similarly, we as Members of Parliament want to know what is happening in our constituencies.

Mr. John Greenway: First, will the Minister join me in wishing the England team all success in Euro 2000, and echo our hope for a peaceful, trouble-free tournament?
On the question of lottery funding, does the hon. Lady agree with the recent comments of the vice-chairman of Sport England, Des Wilson? He says that because of the Government's raid on the lottery and the recent decline in ticket sales,
many community organisations that could have taken a positive reply for granted five years back will now be disappointed. The money just won't be there.
Is not the truth that the Government's abuse of the lottery and total abandonment of the arm's-length and additionality principles will rob sports clubs throughout the country, especially those in areas that have done less well, of support for important projects that they could reasonably have expected to receive by now?

Kate Hoey: Of course I join the hon. Gentleman in sending the England team our best wishes for their first match tonight—and, indeed, for the whole tournament.


We are especially keen for the tournament to be free of trouble, and for our supporters to represent our country in the best possible manner.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman has misquoted the vice-chairman of Sport England. I heard Des Wilson speak on Radio 5 just a few hours after that quote came out, and he did not say that. I remind the hon. Gentleman that when the lottery was set up five years ago, it was said that about £1.8 billion would go to sport over the first seven years of the contract. That was guaranteed. In fact, the sum will be increased. The hon. Gentleman can talk about percentages and new developments, but the amount going to sport over the seven years will be more than was originally promised. In addition, some of the money from the new opportunities fund goes directly to after-school activities related to sport. Of course, we want more people to play the lottery, because if people do not buy tickets, there will be no money for any of the good causes.

Oral Answers to Questions — Digital TV

Mr. Ben Chapman: What action he is taking to promote take-up of digital TV. [123669]

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): We have set in place two firm tests of availability and affordability, which must be met before the full switchover to digital television can take place. In the meantime, we are working with the industry on a public information campaign about digital television, and we will shortly set up a viewers panel to ensure that policy is well informed by consumer concerns.

Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when digital was rolled out, it was done in a way that perpetuated the anomalies inherent in the analogue system, in that some parts of the United Kingdom receive regional television coverage that is entirely inappropriate to the area? For example, my constituency, which is patently in the north-west, gets terrestrial television only from Wales and the midlands. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in any future broadcasting Bill, broadcasters should be required to provide appropriate regional television, and that the take-up of digital television would thereby be enhanced?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend raises a genuine concern with regard to analogue coverage, and I am well aware of the problems faced by a number of his constituents in that respect. Digital terrestrial television at present covers only about half of the country. That proportion will increase progressively over the next two years. My aim is to ensure that as digital television becomes universally available, it will provide a solution to the problem faced by my hon. Friend's constituents.
My hon. Friend's question highlights the fact that it is not only infrastructure that matters, but content as well. We have noted in recent days considerable concern about some of the content on television, particularly in relation to Channel 5. Government cannot and should not directly intervene, but I believe that the broadcasters have a commercial and a moral duty to take good account of the views of the public, and I urge them to do so.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the Secretary of State accept that one of the consequences of the roll-out

of digital television is even more control of what people can receive is placed in the hands of the broadcasters? I am thinking, in particular, of access to sport. Individual broadcasters have a monopoly of the supply of television coverage of a particular sport to sections of the population who are keen on that sport. Should the Government now examine that issue?

Mr. Smith: We have put in place the list of protected sporting events that are of national importance and must be shown free to air on terrestrial television. Shortly after coming to office, we expanded that list to include more sporting events. In addition, it is important that the terrestrial broadcasters, not just the subscription broadcasters, ensure that sport forms a key part of their provision for the public. I certainly look to the terrestrial broadcasters to do that.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: Does my right hon. Friend's definition of digital television include digital access to the internet? We do not want digital television sets that deliver only television programmes. We want them to offer internet access as well. Does my right hon. Friend's definition that digital television should be widespread and available to 95 per cent. or more of the population include internet access?

Mr. Smith: As my hon. Friend knows, perhaps more than most, the boundaries between what we previously described as television and personal telephonic communication have been merging rapidly in recent years. In my speech to the Royal Television Society in September, I made it clear that one of our aims is to ensure that universal access to the internet forms part of the universal availability of digital television.

Oral Answers to Questions — Millennium Dome

Mr. Owen Paterson: If he will make a statement on his plans for the millennium dome. [123670]

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The Millennium Commission's plans for the dome are, first, to help to ensure that the experience draws in increasing numbers of visitors throughout the rest of this year; they will experience the same great enjoyment as previous visitors. Secondly, it will assist with the regeneration of a previously derelict area of south-east London, which is in real need. Thirdly, it will provide a lasting legacy for the future.

Mr. Paterson: In the same spirit, the Prime Minister made an amazing speech in February to outline why the dome was good for Britain. He said that the project was on target and on budget, that it would not take taxpayers' money, and that it would take only £400 million of lottery funds. Every one of us has projects in our constituencies that cry out for lottery funds, yet this hideous failure has gobbled up £538 million. Will the Secretary of State now stand up and say that enough is enough, and that not one penny more of lottery funds—or any other public funds—will be spent on that national humiliation?

Mr. Smith: May I make three points to the hon. Gentleman? First, it was the previous Government who


began the project. Secondly, 85 per cent. of visitors to the dome say that it is a hugely enjoyable experience, which they would recommend to their friends and neighbours. Thirdly, the Millennium Commission has made it clear to the New Millennium Experience Company that it must cut its coat according to its cloth and operate within the budget that has been allocated to it.

Mr. Clive Efford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the dome's detractors have failed to recognise the benefits that it has brought to its part of London? Before the millennium project, there were no transport links, other than heavy rail, for people travelling to central London. The site was one of the biggest derelict areas, and heavily contaminated. Without a project of the dome's size, it probably would not have been decontaminated and used. More importantly, the project brought economic development and jobs to an area of London where, only a few miles from here, there are some of the most deprived communities in this country.

Mr. Paterson: What about Shropshire?

Mr. Efford: Opposition Members clearly do not understand the need for economic development and intervention to create jobs where there is no hope of jobs. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking to ensure that that issue remains at the top of his agenda when he considers future uses for the dome?

Mr. Smith: I certainly give that undertaking, although I am not personally involved in the decision about the dome's future legacy. However, I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are involved.
My hon. Friend's point about the dome's regeneration impact on the whole of south-east London is well made. That was one of the major reasons for the birth of the project, which was conceived by the Conservative party. Conservative Members' attempts to do down the project does them no credit and the country no good.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The Secretary of State's attempts, on the one hand to shed responsibility for what has gone wrong with the dome and place it with the previous Conservative Administration, and on the other to pretend that the project is a resounding success, are as convincing as the Prime Minister's performance at the Women's Institute conference last week. Are there any circumstances in which the Secretary of State would refuse the dome more money? How bad do things have to get? How deep must the hole be dug? In its contempt for history, its cheap gimmickry and its botched execution, the dome has become the perfect symbol of new Labour. Value for money, financial responsibility, lottery cash, and even public opinion, count for nothing, because what matters most to the Secretary of State and the chairman of the Millennium Commission is saving the Government's face.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman's assessment flies in the face of the assessment of the two and a half million people who have already visited the dome and enjoyed the experience enormously. Of course, the numbers have been lower than those originally projected, as everyone knows, and I accept that that has created financial

problems. However, we have made it extremely clear to the New Millennium Experience Company that it must operate within the budget set for it. I was delighted that Mr. Gerbeau, the chief executive of NMEC, confirmed last week that he would not return to the Millennium Commission for extra funds.

Mr. Ainsworth: All I can say is, come off it. The Government are not having much luck. Even the new millennium bridge is beginning to look a little like new Labour. From a distance it is a rather attractive proposition, but once tested, it is given to bouts of violent wobbling.
I know that the Government do not like answering questions about the dome's finances. All too often, we are batted away with bogus claims about commercial confidentiality. However, it is unusual not to get any response at all, not even a holding reply. Will the Secretary of State answer the question that I tabled on 25 May, and say which accountancy firms have been paid by the dome and for what purposes?

Mr. Smith: That question will be answered in due course in the normal way.
The hon. Gentleman takes the apparent initial difficulties with the millennium bridge between St. Paul's and Bankside rather lightly. I do not. The safety of pedestrians on bridge is surely paramount, which is why I have already asked Millennium Commission officials for urgent advice on what measures need to be taken to ensure the public's safety. I would have thought that that was rather more important than making a few cheap jokes, as the hon. Gentleman did.

Oral Answers to Questions — Museums and Galleries

Mr. Gerald Howarth: If he will make a statement on access to museums. [123671]

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): Our policy is to encourage all museums to offer the widest possible access to their collections. We have enabled national museums that are funded by my Department and offer free admission to continue to offer it. We have scrapped entry charges for children and the over-60s to museums that currently charge for admission. Funds have been set aside to enable trustees to introduce a standard admission charge of £1 from September 2001, and to grant free admission to all those, including people with disabilities, who are in receipt of the major social security benefits.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister scrap his fatuous, insulting and politically correct proposal that museums are to have funds withheld if they fail to attract enough ethnic minority visitors? If he will not scrap that ludicrous scheme, how are museums expected to distinguish between ethnic minorities and, for example, natives who are excessively suntanned? Will that ludicrous policy also apply to this place—which, thanks to the Prime Minister's indifference, is rapidly turning into the museum of democracy?

Mr. Alan Howarth: That scheme is a figment of the hon. Gentleman's imagination, fed by a peculiarly silly article in The Daily Telegraph. I assure him that there are no quotas and that there is no link between museum funding and ethnic minority visitor numbers. Of course we want people from all backgrounds to have access to the best of our culture. I regularly discuss that matter with the chairmen of trustees and the directors of our national museums and galleries, all of whom share the Government's enthusiasm for ensuring that our museums are accessible to the many, not the few. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman does not share that vision.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to be congratulated on presiding over a great increase in the number, and the enthusiasm, of people in this country who visit museums and art galleries. What discussions has my hon. Friend the Minister had with the Treasury on VAT, which, of course, limits the opportunities that we had hoped for as a result of my right hon. Friend's initiatives?

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his kind words. We have scrapped admission charges for children and pensioners at 23 museums and galleries, and, in the first year, child visitor figures are up 18 per cent. In the two months since we abolished admission charges for pensioners, recorded numbers of visitors over 60 have increased almost two and a half times, which is encouraging.
My right hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the tension between our ambition to ensure that our museums and galleries are accessible to the largest number of people, and the impact of the VAT regime, which penalises museums and galleries that charge for entry. With that in mind, I convened a meeting last year with the directors of national museums and galleries and the National Art Collections Fund, as a result of which the NACF produced an extremely helpful paper, which is assisting us in our discussions with the Treasury.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Is it still the Government's intention that there should be free access for all to national museums and galleries, and is not the issue essentially one of working out ways of bringing that about and calculating the cost? Will the views of people such as generous benefactors—for example, Sir Denis Mahon—be borne in mind when it comes to the crunch?
Further to the point about VAT, in the two months since the Budget, have the Minister and his colleagues made progress in the discussion about the possibility of adding national museums and galleries to the bodies covered by section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994? That seems to be the most sensible way of avoiding the nonsense whereby the Government give cash grants to national institutions and then reclaim them through VAT.

Mr. Howarth: I readily echo the tribute that the right hon. Gentleman paid to Sir Denis Mahon, who has been a most remarkable benefactor of our national museums and galleries. As we said in our pre-election document, "Create the future", access will be a cornerstone of our

cultural policy, and we remain committed to making the best progress that we can towards extending free entry. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that section 33 of the VAT Act seems to be the most promising avenue to enable us to overcome that important snag, and we shall continue to explore it.

Ms Claire Ward: What legal advice did Ministers receive before deciding to introduce free admission for the over-60s rather than linking it to pension age? Has that advice been made available to other Departments?

Mr. Howarth: If I may, I will write to my hon. Friend on that point. We had to make a judgment, and it did not seem sensible to persist with gender differentiation in free access for people of retirement age. I hope that she will feel that in opting for 60 rather than 65 we erred on the right side.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the Minister aware of the progress that has been made on charges by the national museum and galleries of Wales, with free entry available not only to children and pensioners but to students and unemployed people? Is not that a good model for the other parts of these islands, and will he congratulate the national museum of Wales and the National Assembly for Wales on that scheme?

Mr. Howarth: I do, with pleasure.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The fact is that Labour stumbled into making a pledge about universal free access without having even thought about the Treasury implications. Is the Minister not aware of the growing frustration of museum directors and trustees about the way in which their service agreements are becoming increasingly intrusive, patronising and political? Does he not understand that they resent being bullied on access, when they have always tried to increase access anyway?
Now that the Government have completed the U-turn on their pledge for universal free admission, what practical assistance will the Minister provide to all the other museums throughout the country, many of which are local, which face an uncertain future under this Government?

Mr. Howarth: I do not recognise what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. We did not make the pledge that he described. Far from what he says being correct, the chairmen of trustees and the directors of national museums and galleries appreciate the opportunity that the negotiation of funding agreements gives them to explore our shared objectives in depth.
As for the important issue of how we are to ensure better support for regional museums and galleries, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the £15 million designation challenge fund, which is already in place, to the funds to support museums and galleries in education spending and investment in information technology, and to the extension of the heritage lottery fund's access fund by £3 million a year into the future.

Oral Answers to Questions — National Foundation for Youth Music

Ms Glenda Jackson: How many schools are expected to benefit from the National Foundation for Youth Music in its first year. [123674]

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The National Foundation for Youth Music's remit is to support activities for young people that take place largely outside the formal education sector. However, as applicants are encouraged to form partnerships with the wider community, there will be benefits for schools. The foundation is currently considering applications under Music Maker, which aims to benefit up to 120,000 children, and Singing Challenge, which will serve at least 15,000 children. The instrument amnesty has attracted approximately 5,000 unused instruments, which will be re-routed to up to 1,000 organisations working with young people.

Ms Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that extremely heartening reply, which shows the support provided not only by the foundation but by the Government, highlighting the importance of music making and ensuring that all our children have the ability to deal with the difficulties of music and musical instruments. Did not the previous Government make the most swingeing and savaging attacks, reducing the ability of all our children to enjoy the pleasure of music making? Although every part of the country suffered severe deprivation under the Conservative Government, will he ask the foundation to ensure that some of the most seriously deprived areas of the country will be at the top of its list, so that their children have access to music and music making?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the serious decline in musical instrument teaching for young people in this country over the past 15 to 20 years. We have begun to put that right through the establishment of the national foundation and through money from the standards fund, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has also made available. Of course those initiatives will help in the areas that suffered most, especially in areas of social deprivation, where the need is arguably greatest.

Mr. Graham Brady: Did the Secretary of State note the reported comments last week by the head of the Yehudi Menuhin school, who said that opportunities for teaching music, art and drama were being squeezed out of the curriculum in schools throughout the country? Does he recognise that that problem is far from being confined to the past, but is continuing and getting worse? Is the Secretary of State doing anything in conjunction with his colleague in the Department for Education and Employment to set the record straight?

Mr. Smith: I did note those comments, and they do not reflect what is happening across the country as a whole. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has made £150 million available to local education authorities through the music standards fund. Several local education authorities, some controlled by the

Conservative party, have not taken up that funding. The Department for Education and Employment cannot force local education authorities to take up the money, but it is there.

Oral Answers to Questions — Lottery Awards

Mr. Tony McWalter: What proportion of the national lottery funds allocated to (a) the arts and (b) sport has been allocated to dance. [123675]

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): The Arts Council of England has awarded lottery funds to 563 dance projects, totalling over £136 million—11 per cent. of the total ACE lottery awards made. Sport England has awarded funds to six specific movement and dance projects totalling £697,016–0.1 per cent. of the total lottery funds awarded by Sport England. Sums awarded to other projects in which dance is an element further increase those totals.

Mr. McWalter: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and for his continued interest in the development of dance in Britain, but is he aware that that very low figure for sport does not do justice to the fact that dance provides the main opportunity that many young girls have to develop kinaesthetic ability and enjoy competitive recreation? Will he ensure that the figure for sport is significantly increased in future, so that that population can be properly served?

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's continuing interest in that subject and look forward to meeting him and my hon. Friends the Members for Salford (Ms Blears) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) before long to pursue our discussion at a meeting in my Department. In the meantime, I shall certainly talk to my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport.
However, as my hon. Friend knows, it is not for us to instruct the lottery distributors what particular projects they ought to support, although, with his assistance, we can ensure that the significance of supporting dance in schools and as an aspect of sport is more widely appreciated.

Oral Answers to Questions — Royal Parks Constabulary

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: When he last met the chief officer of the Royal Parks Constabulary to discuss the powers of constables. [123676]

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): I have met the acting chief officer of the Royal Parks Constabulary on several occasions to discuss that point. I will meet the new chief executive of the Royal Parks Agency regularly once he takes post on 10 July. I also meet, and receive advice from, the Royal Parks Advisory Board. We shall shortly undertake a review of the Royal Parks Constabulary.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Minister confirm that the chief officer of the Royal Parks Constabulary and the


chief constables of the Ministry of Defence and the British Transport police have asked for the powers set out in my Police Bill? What is he going to do about that and when?

Mr. Howarth: As I said, we shall review the Royal Parks Constabulary, and the issue that my hon. Friend raises will undoubtedly be an important focus of that review.

Oral Answers to Questions — Theatre

Mr. Paul Flynn: What has been the percentage change in the (a) level of public subsidies and (b) size of audiences for live theatre in the past 10 years. [123677]

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Public subsidy for theatre decreased by about 1 per cent. in real terms in the 10 years to 1997–98, but will have increased by 7.2 per cent. in real terms between then and 2000–01. Meanwhile, in the 10 years to 1997—the last year for which figures are currently available—audiences for subsidised theatre decreased by about 16 per cent.

Mr. Flynn: Does not that reveal a bleak situation? The majority of live theatres around the country outside tourist areas represent an art form in decline. While we would all say that live theatre is an important part of the artistic inheritance of all the nations of Britain, perhaps the time has come to consider subsidising those of great artistic excellence and to reconsider transferring money to booming art forms—for example, the publication of books of poetry has doubled in the past five years—and the infinite opportunities that the new technologies present to provide live theatre and other art forms universally through the internet.

Mr. Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend that those figures reveal that a small reduction in subsidy starves theatre of funds and results in a much greater decline in audiences. Therefore, reversing that decline, as we are in the process of doing, has been one of the important parts of the extra investment that we have put in place with the Arts Council. I am pleased that the Arts Council will allocate £1.4 million to literature in 2000–01, and more than 70 per cent. of that will be spent directly or indirectly on poetry.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I implore the Secretary of State to ignore what the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has just said and to do all he can to encourage live theatre, which is one of Britain's national treasures, not only in the west end but in provincial theatres all over the country. When there is so much spare capacity, it is a great shame that people and young schoolchildren who would dearly love to go to live theatre are unable to do so. Will he ask the theatres to allow more people to see live theatre by encouraging either discount schemes or the use of spare capacity by schoolchildren?

Mr. Smith: For once, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. That is precisely the point of the new audiences fund, which we put in place two years ago and have continued since. It is aimed particularly at helping

people who would not otherwise have the opportunity to do so, to see not only theatre but all forms of the performing arts. I am acutely aware of the plight of regional theatre—it has been highlighted by the Boyden report, which the Arts Council recently published—and, together with the Arts Council and the regional arts boards, we are considering how we can help in that matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — Urban Regeneration

Ms Hazel Blears: What assessment he has made of the impact of millennium projects on the regeneration of urban areas. [123679]

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Millennium projects are already making a significant impact in urban areas across the United Kingdom, providing new community facilities, cultural and educational resources, improved public spaces and boosted economies. The Lowry centre in Salford, the international centre for life in Newcastle and Tate Modern have all opened within the last couple of months. The Millennium Commission will be undertaking a detailed large-scale economic impact assessment of its capital projects this summer.

Ms Blears: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to attend the opening of the magnificent Lowry centre. I hope that he enjoyed the experience.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital for centres such as the Lowry to involve their local communities, as well as providing venues for world-class opera, ballet and other performances? Will he confirm that his Department intends to continue expanding the fund to build new audiences and, crucially, to invest in the skills, talent and creativity of local young people so that they see the Lowry as their theatre—their centre—and a place where they can express the talents that we all know they possess?

Mr. Smith: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to the role that she has played, on Salford council and subsequently as Salford's Member of Parliament, in ensuring that the Lowry has been an enormous success.
The Lowry has already attracted a £72 million retail and leisure development—a commercial development—to an adjacent site. It has been a catalyst for the £4 million water quarter improvement programme in the area, and it is estimated that it has helped to create some 6,500 jobs in the local economy. That demonstrates that major cultural capital projects rooted in the support of the local community can be a major force for regeneration.

Mr. John Bercow: Can the right hon. Gentleman offer the House some assessment of the proportion of the jobs to which he just referred that have been created in the private sector, and the proportion created in the public sector? Can he also offer a rough indication of the proportion of those important jobs that he expects to be sustained?

Mr. Smith: I certainly expect the jobs in whole to be sustained. I do not know the exact breakdown between


the public and private sectors, but I imagine that the overwhelming majority are in the private commercial sector, although some people will be directly employed by the Lowry centre.

Oral Answers to Questions — Forth Rail Bridge

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Pursuant to his answer of 9 May 2000, Official Report, columns 379–80W, what liaison he has had with the devolved Administrations about nomination of the Forth bridge to UNESCO for world heritage site status; and if he will make a statement about how the UNESCO world heritage committee's priorities for action relate to the Forth bridge. [123680]

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): Although my Department liaises regularly with the devolved Administrations over United Kingdom world heritage site issues, including the possible order and timing of all future UK nominations, the Scottish Executive will decide when they wish to nominate the Forth bridge. UNESCO's world heritage committee is considering priorities for the number and types of sites it would like to see nominated from all countries in the future, and that will affect UK nominations.

Mr. Dalyell: When is the consideration to which my hon. Friend refers likely to reach a conclusion?

Mr. Howarth: I cannot answer my hon. Friend on that point, as it will be a matter for the Scottish Executive. I can, however, tell him that the Forth bridge is a category A listed building and, as such, should be properly cared for, whether or not it is nominated as a world heritage site. Should it be nominated, there is an expectation—indeed, I would say a requirement—for the site to be properly maintained to the highest standards in accordance with a management plan.

Oral Answers to Questions — Holidays (People With Disabilities)

Mr. Gordon Marsden: What discussions he has had with the English Tourism Council about promoting and widening access to holidays for people with disabilities. [123682]

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Widening access to tourism for everyone, including people with disabilities, is a key commitment for the English Tourism Council. I am pleased to note that, this summer, the ETC is publishing "Accessible Britain 2000", a complete list of accommodation awarded a category of accessibility by the tourist boards or Holiday Care under the national accessibility scheme.

Mr. Marsden: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. It is important, given the large number of people who cannot currently take a holiday, many of whom are disabled. Does he, like me, welcome the work done by other organisations such as the Association of British Travel Agents in promoting awareness, and in particular the scheme that it is pursuing with the Royal National Institute for the Blind? Does he agree that many small hoteliers in seaside towns still need advice and assistance

from the ETC in making their establishments accessible, and will he consider the possibility of using the new opportunities fund for that purpose?

Mr. Smith: I certainly endorse what my hon. Friend says about the importance of encouraging and widening accessibility for people with disabilities. It is a notable fact that about 40 per cent. of the population do not take a holiday. I suspect that a substantial proportion of those do not do so because of difficulties of physical access. We need to continue to encourage the tourism industry to seek to overcome that. One of the features of the industry is that it is made up of many very small enterprises. We need to encourage and enable them to improve accessibility. The ETC will certainly seek to do that.

Oral Answers to Questions — Football Taskforce

Mr. Peter L. Pike: What discussions he has had with the football authorities about the football taskforce report on commercial issues, with special reference to the cost of going to professional football matches for families and children. [123683]

The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, on 16 March I met representatives of the Football Association, the premier league and the football league to discuss the Government's response to the report. In further informal discussions with the football authorities and supporters groups, I have made clear the Government's desire that football's new regulatory body—whatever form it takes—should examine the costs of attending football matches.

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend will know that the majority report expressed serious concerns about ticket pricing at some clubs and about the price of replica shirts supplied by some football clubs. Those are issues of great importance. Will she recognise the important step that has been taken by Burnley football club, which, newly promoted to the first division, has introduced a children's ticket to all parts of the ground for £35 for next season? Should not all premier clubs ensure that they issue concessionary tickets to all children?

Kate Hoey: I congratulate Burnley. Indeed, a number of other clubs have introduced quite innovative methods to ensure that children and families are attracted to football, but we take the issue seriously. As I have said, whatever form the regulatory body takes, when we announce our formal conclusions on the taskforce report, that will be a priority.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the hon. Lady agree that there should be a restoration of balance in favour of ordinary football-going supporters such as my brother and his family? There should be a restoration in the balance of interests, so that it is not just the commercial interests of big companies that take directors to football matches on a Saturday that are respected but those of ordinary football-goers who enjoy their Saturday.

Kate Hoey: I am sure that the hon. Lady's family are ordinary football supporters. They are the people without whom football would not be what it is. It is crucial that


football clubs, whether they be in the premier league or in another division, realise the strength and importance of their supporters and look at things in the long term. They should not just go for the short-term effects of short money, with no long-term solutions for football.

Oral Answers to Questions — Swimming

Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on the promotion of swimming in schools. [123684]

The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): Swimming is important in its own right as a school sport and as an essential safety tool. That is why it remains a compulsory element of the national curriculum for physical education, which requires that, by the age of 11, pupils should be able to swim 25 m and should be aware of the principles of water safety.

Mr. Bercow: I speak as someone who swims badly but persistently five times a week at the Living Well health club at No. 4 Millbank. Does the hon. Lady accept that I and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are concerned about the diminution in opportunities in schools to participate in swimming? Will she guarantee to arrest the tide? Will she take this opportunity to spell out the importance not only of swimming in general, but of the excellent sport of synchronised swimming in particular?

Kate Hoey: The only information that the hon. Gentleman has not given me is the time that he goes swimming at the health centre, but I agree about the importance of swimming. Last October, I raised my concerns with Chris Woodhead of the Office for Standards in Education to encourage him and Ofsted to do more in terms of section 10 inspections of school swimming. It is something that a number of Members are interested in. Ofsted has now introduced an extra focused inspection on swimming. We will get the results of that very soon. They will be announced shortly.
Having watched synchronised swimming, I support it very much. It is a sport that requires a huge amount of physical effort; it is very demanding indeed.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — Management of Investments

Mr. Peter L. Pike: What steps the commissioners have taken to transfer day-to-day fund management of UK equities and their fixed interest portfolio; and if he will make a statement. [123698]

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The commissioners have decided to transfer day-to-day fund management of their United Kingdom equities and fixed-interest portfolio to Churches, Charities and Local Authorities Investment Management Ltd. Additionally, several experienced members of the in-house team will

transfer to preserve continuity of management, which, over the years, has produced such good results for the commissioners. It is planned that the transfer will take place on 30 June 2000.

Mr. Pike: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. One thing that he has not told us, however, is the cost implications. Will large costs and hefty fees be paid to CCLA? If so, what effect will those have on the commissioners' ability to help fund the Church?

Mr. Bell: The commissioners will, of course, pay CCLA a fee. However, an increase in the overall costs of fund management is not expected to affect the distributions that the commissioners make for support of the Church. The policy remains to provide the maximum sustainable level of support to the Church.

Oral Answers to Questions — Church Repairs and Renovations

Mr. Gordon Marsden: What assessment the commissioners have made of the contribution to the rural economy in England of repairs and renovations to churches. [123699]

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The repair, renovation and development by parishes of rural churches make a significant financial contribution to the rural economy, to supporting and encouraging local skilled craftsman and businesses, and to maintaining rural community life.

Mr. Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which confirms the Historic Houses Association's view that that activity maintains about 7,000 jobs in the sector. Does he agree that the traditional labour-intensive skills to which he referred would be further enhanced and encouraged if £18 million of the £123 million that the Church spends yearly on repairs and renovations did not go straight into paying VAT? Will he also use that information to press home those points on colleagues and Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in time for the forthcoming rural White Paper?

Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the issue of VAT on church repairs, on which discussions are continuing with the Treasury and the DETR. We are also seeking to persuade the Government not only to review operation of the directive within the European Union, so that it will cover church repairs, but to reduce VAT to 5 per cent.

Mr. Tim Boswell: In support of the point made by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), and in view of the encouragement that can be taken from the remarks just made by the hon. Gentleman, does the hon. Gentleman accept that, even when the Treasury has—as it often has—quite good arguments in principle for a general approach, there is a quite special problem in relation to churches, particularly small churches and large churches in small communities,


for which the cost of repair and renovation is entirely disproportionate to anything that they can realistically raise?

Mr. Bell: Those points were made to the Minister for the Arts when we saw him. It is not generally known that we have 16,000 parish churches in rural areas, and that they are among the best maintained in Europe. However, the additional burden of VAT on maintenance of those buildings is a serious burden on local, Church-worshipping communities.

Oral Answers to Questions — Assets (1999 Results)

Mr. Ben Chapman: What implications the commissioners' recently published 1999 results have for their support of the Church; and if he will make a statement. [123700]

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The market value of the commissioners' assets stood at £4,400 million at the year end, and the assets provided £156 million in support of the Church's ministry. That sum includes an element of support targeted specifically at parish ministry in dioceses most in need of financial help. The total sum met 20 per cent. of the Church's overall running costs, in 1999, of approximately £760 million.

Mr. Chapman: Given that, could more be done for the very poorest of parishes? Could some of those funds be used to enable clergy to have decent conditions of service? Could the conditions of service and rights of employment that have increasingly been made available to other people in society now be made available to the clergy as well?

Mr. Bell: In fact, £20.6 million of parish ministry support is provided by the Church Commissioners, and £15.1 million is targeted to support parish ministry in areas of greatest need. The archbishop's council is examining the content of the clergy remuneration package, the remuneration of clergy in relation to that of other groups and the financial circumstances of clergy, and its review will be given to the General Synod in November 2000.

Oral Answers to Questions — Investment in Zimbabwe

Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on the commissioners' policy on investment in Zimbabwe. [123701]

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): As at December 1999, the commissioners' overseas equities were valued at £648.1 million. The commissioners have no investments in Zimbabwe.

Mr. Bercow: In the light of the brutal behaviour of the Zimbabwean Government at home, the way in which they have offended everybody abroad and the fact that they

are now, without doubt, international pariahs, is the hon. Gentleman aware that that answer, on behalf of the Church Commissioners, warms the cockles of my heart?

Mr. Bell: I am pleased to be able to warm the cockles of the hon. Gentleman's heart. I should point out that the commissioners' overseas investments are managed externally by three fund managers. Those managers have discretionary powers to invest in all world equity markets, including those of the emerging economies, while complying with the commissioners' ethical criteria. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point in relation to those criteria.

Oral Answers to Questions — Church Land Rents

Mr. Paul Flynn: What has been the increase in real terms in the level of rents charged for church land in the last 10 years. [123702]

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I am not able to quantify the 10-year return on commissioners' farm lettings alone, but, over the last 10 years, the total return on all the commissioners' agricultural property has been 9.7 per cent.

Mr. Flynn: When the commissioners next adjust the rents, could I urge them to read the inspiring words of the Books of Isaiah and Hosea on Christian charity, which urged that it should be extended beyond the human race to the animal species? Could not the Church Commissioners devise a way to reward those tenants who have already banned the cruel activity of fox hunting on their lands?

Mr. Bell: I would not wish to anticipate the statement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I will listen to it with great interest.

Oral Answers to Questions — GM Crops

Sir Sydney Chapman: What advice the Church Commissioners have received about the growing of GM crops on Church land; and how they intend to monitor the results of the current round of trials. [123703]

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Following extensive study and consultation, the Church of England's ethical investments advisory group—a copy of whose report has been placed in the House of Commons Library—has recommended to the commissioners that new agricultural tenancies should contain a clause restricting the use of genetically modified seeds and requiring the express consent of the commissioners to the use of their land for this purpose. The commissioners have considered and accepted this advice.

Sir Sydney Chapman: If it can be shown that there is no damage to the ecological system in introducing genetically modified crops—given, however, that controversy surrounds the subject—would the Second Church Estates Commissioner agree that it might be more


sensible if the Church Commissioners were unilaterally to change their leases and take over control of matters relating to cropping on their land?

Mr. Bell: The Church Commissioners have taken fully into account the continued controversy concerning GM crops. In law, the commissioners have no power to change leases already granted, as their tenants enjoy freedom of cropping within the terms of their lease. As responsible stewards of the land that we own, we remain prudently aware of developments in this controversial area from many perspectives, including environmental stewardship.

Oral Answers to Questions — Vocations

Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement on recent trends in the number of vocations. [123704]

Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The trends in the number of vocations over the last four years have been rising in all categories—that is, among stipendiary ministry and also non-stipendiary and ordained local ministry. There are approximately 25 per cent. more ordinands in training than there were four years ago.

Mr. Swayne: Is the hon. Gentleman confident that the Church Commissioners will be able to meet the expenses that that increase anticipates, particularly in respect of the long-term future regarding pensions?

Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the burden on the commissioners of meeting pension commitments entered into and to the need to provide a proper stipend and proper conditions for those within the Church. We are on target for that, but we are in the hands of actuaries, who often investigate these matters and give us their views.

Hunting With Dogs

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, I shall make a statement on the report of the committee of inquiry into hunting with dogs in England and Wales, which I am publishing today. Copies of the report are available in the Vote Office.
The House will recall that, last November, I announced that there would be an inquiry into hunting and that Lord Burns had accepted my invitation to be the chairman. The other members of the inquiry were appointed for their expertise in agricultural and rural economics, and in veterinary science. I am most grateful to Lord Burns, and to the members of his committee, for their hard work and for the fact that the report has come in on time.
The committee was not asked to recommend whether hunting should be banned, for that is a matter for Parliament to decide. Nor was it asked to consider moral or ethical issues. The Burns report instead covers four key areas in relation to hunting. First, it considers the contribution that hunting makes to employment and the rural economy as well as to social and cultural aspects of life in rural areas. Secondly, it deals with animal welfare issues and matters of population management. Thirdly, it considers whether drag hunting is a viable alternative to hunting with hounds. The final area covered by the report is an assessment of the consequences of any ban on hunting, and how a ban might be implemented. The report also assesses how some people's concerns in regard to particular aspects of hunting might be addressed should hunting not be banned.
The committee visited different parts of England and Wales to witness at first hand a number of hunting activities. Academics were commissioned to undertake research. The inquiry organised a number of seminars, which were attended by all sides of the debate. It also held public meetings and ensured that working papers were publicly available on its website. This inquiry into hunting was the first official one since the Scott-Henderson inquiry reported to the House in June 1951.
I have had the opportunity to read the Burns report over the weekend. I thoroughly commend it to all right hon. and hon. Members. I hope that when they have had the same chance as I have had to study the report, they will share my view that it is a profoundly impressive study, cogent and well argued, dispassionate and careful in its conclusions.
The report needs to be read and considered as a whole, and it is hard to do justice to its views in a few paragraphs. None the less, the House would, I think, wish me to summarise some of its key observations.
On employment, the report states that
between 6,000 and 8,000 full-time equivalent jobs … depend on hunting.
It states that most of the employment effects of a ban could be offset in the long term, which it describes as between seven and 10 years. However,
in the short and medium term, the individual and local effects might be more serious,
as they would be for a number of local communities.
The report contains details of research commissioned in four specific rural communities where hunting is actively pursued, and says that this research suggests higher levels of support for hunting in such areas than previous surveys have indicated.
In chapter 6, the committee considers animal welfare aspects of hunting and the relative effects on the welfare of foxes and other species of different methods that are currently used to control their population. It concludes—I quote paragraph 6.49—
There is a lack of firm scientific evidence about the effect on the welfare of a fox of being closely pursued, caught and killed above ground by hounds. We are satisfied, nevertheless, that this experience seriously compromises the welfare of the fox.
The report says that a ban on hunting with dogs would have no significant impact on the population of foxes in lowland areas, but could lead to an increase in the number in upland areas.
Several recommendations are made about the regulation and licensing of hunting if a ban were not imposed, and the committee also concludes that, generally, any ban should apply nationwide, without different legislative provisions in different regions of the country.
The purpose of the inquiry was to get to the facts, in order better to inform the debate. I am sure that when right hon. and hon. Members have read the report they will see that it has achieved that objective.
Let me now turn to the arrangements that I propose to the House for it to consider the report and reach conclusions on it. Right hon. and hon. Members will first want the chance to study the report. Then, subject to the agreement of business managers, I would like the House to have an opportunity, before the recess if at all possible, to debate the report itself, on a motion for the Adjournment.
I want now to say what I propose should follow that debate. In our manifesto, we said that there would be a free vote on hunting with hounds. The Government are, and remain, neutral on the merits of whether hunting with hounds should be banned, but, in the light of that commitment, we have an obligation to ensure that the decisions of the House can have effect.
That is why, when I announced the establishment of the Burns inquiry last November, I said that the Government would provide Government time and assistance to allow the House to come to a proper legislative conclusion on a free vote. Our original plan was to do that by means of a private Member's Bill, drafted with Government assistance, and in Government time, but I now believe that it would be better for the convenience of the House to have a Government Bill, in Government time, containing a series of legislative options on the merits on which there can be free votes. Such a Bill would, I believe, provide for a more structured debate and better allow for consideration of a wider range of alternatives in the light of the report. The House will recall that such an arrangement worked satisfactorily for the Sunday Trading Bill six years ago, in 1994.
In the meantime, arrangements are being made for the main interest groups, and for the police and other relevant public authorities, to be consulted so that the options in the Bill reflect the alternative legal regimes that could properly be put into force. The consultation will take place as soon as possible, and I anticipate that a Bill will be introduced early in the next Session.
I well recognise—all too well—the strength of feeling on this matter. It is only right that all sides of the debate should be given the opportunity to have their point of view considered fairly and that Parliament should then have the chance to come to a proper conclusion. I hope


that the House will agree that a procedure of the kind that I have outlined provides that opportunity. Meanwhile, I repeat my thanks to Lord Burns and his committee, and I commend his report to the House.

Mr. David Lidington: First, I thank the Home Secretary for his customary courtesy in—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The Home Secretary was heard in silence and Mr. Lidington must be, too.

Mr. Lidington: I thank the Home Secretary for his customary courtesy in giving me early sight of both the Burns report and his statement.
On behalf of the Opposition, regardless of our individual opinions, I express our appreciation for the work that Lord Burns and his team have done. In the short time that I have had to acquaint myself with the findings of the report, it has become clear to me that it is a thorough and painstaking piece of work and that all Members of Parliament, on all sides of the argument, would do well to study it in detail.
The fact remains that the Government's introduction of a Bill on hunting is a distraction from the issues that really matter to the people whom we represent. The Government appointed Lord Burns and his committee six months ago. They waited for half a year while that committee examined in meticulous detail the evidence on the subject and consulted individuals and organisations representing all sides of the argument. Astonishingly, however, they could not be bothered even to wait for the report to be delivered to the Home Secretary's desk before they started to brief selected journalists that, regardless of the report's conclusions, they would press forward with their own Bill, in Government time.
The Home Secretary reminded the House that decisions on the options that he proposes will take place on a free vote. However, he will be responsible for introducing a Bill that may create new criminal offences. I have three questions about his responsibilities, and those of his Department, as that Bill is prepared.
First, Lord Burns states that a ban on hunting would be open to challenge under the European convention on human rights. Will the Home Secretary confirm that, over the next few months, he will carry out and make publicly available an analysis by his Department and the Law Officers of the convention's potential impact on the Bill?
Secondly, the Home Secretary's plans involve the creation of new criminal offences. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to include in the Bill a detailed description of the new offences, so that people know exactly where they stand, or does he propose to frame the Bill in more general terms? He will know that Lord Burns drew attention to the importance of that decision.
Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman make a detailed assessment of the demands on the police service of enforcing the law if a ban is eventually enacted? Has he consulted the Association of Chief Police Officers on the matter? Does he really regard enforcing laws such as

would be involved in a ban on hunting as a priority for our police service, which is especially hard-pressed in rural areas? [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Mr. Lidington: It is clear from the Burns report that more jobs would be at stake from the Government's proposed Bill than were stake in the recent crisis at Longbridge. Are the Government planning to consider a form of direct compensation, or some other arrangements, to help people whose livelihoods may be taken away from them by an Act of Parliament?
The Home Secretary will know that Lord Burns draws attention to the role that hunts play in respect of dealing with fallen stock, and to the importance of that for the farming community. Are the Government starting to think about alternative arrangements for disposal if the hunts were no longer available to deal with carcases?
When the Bill comes before the House in the next Session, will the Home Secretary confirm that it will apply to England and Wales only, and that any decisions in respect of Scotland will be devolved to the Edinburgh Parliament? If so, will he therefore urge all hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies at Westminster to refrain from taking part in debates and votes on the Bill? Will not this be the first important test of the principle that laws that affect England and Wales should be made by the representatives of England and Wales?
May I conclude on a note of agreement with the Home Secretary? I agreed completely with his statement to The Times in March 1998, when, talking of hunting, he said:
I am well aware there are strong opinions on this matter, but it is not uppermost in the minds of the majority of the population. What they want are decent schools, a decent health service, and to be able to walk down their streets safely.
Has not the Home Secretary's statement today demonstrated, once and for all, that the priorities of this Government are no longer the priorities of the British people?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) for the appreciation that he expressed to the noble Lord Burns and to members of his committee.
The hon. Gentleman says that bringing forward a Bill on hunting is a "distraction". There is at stake quite an important constitutional issue, which arose in exactly the same way in respect of shops legislation a dozen years or more ago. It was perfectly plain that the House wished to come to a conclusion on the issue. As it turned out, I was on the losing side, because I was against an extension of Sunday trading. Be that as it may, as a private Member, I strongly believed that the House needed to come to a conclusion. Given that a large number of private Members' Bills and motions had failed to reach a conclusion, the Government of the day took the view that the public expected that there should be a legislative conclusion. They sensibly arranged for a Bill containing a series of options to be introduced, on the merits of which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the argument would be able to come to a conclusion and exercise their own vote. I think that that is a sensible way to proceed.
The hon. Gentleman asks whether I agree that a ban is open to challenge under the European convention on human rights. He was right to read out paragraph 10.17 of the report, which says:
Legislation to ban hunting might be open to challenge under Article 1 Protocol 1 … and, possibly, Article 8 … of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Of course, any Bill that is presented to the House by a Minister is subject to a section 19 statement by the Minister presenting it as to whether or not it is compatible with the convention. That will happen in this case. I am glad that Conservative Members have now discovered the merits of our incorporating the European convention on human rights in legislation. Conservative Members keep forgetting this, but they wished the Human Rights Bill well on its Third Reading.
The framing of any Bill will, of course, take careful account of the importance of drafting the criminal offences so that they are comprehensible to the law enforcement authorities, the courts, the police and any potential offenders. I understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers offered evidence to the Burns inquiry. As I made clear in my statement, we shall, of course, be consulting ACPO and the other police associations in the consultations that are about to take place.
The hon. Gentleman then made a series of comments about whether this was a distraction. His view is obviously not shared by the person who normally takes his role, namely the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). After all, she said under the heading "Widdecombe backs Blair over hunting":
Foxhunting is rightly doomed. It is time for the last "tally ho!
That is the right hon. Lady's opinion. She has been banished from the House under the freedoms that the Leader of the Opposition offers his members of the shadow Cabinet, and she obviously does not take the view that any difficulties would arise so far on the framing of criminal offences. That is her view. Of course, I shall go into those matters in much greater detail.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman raised the absurd point as to whether Members of Parliament who represent Scottish constituencies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish!"] It is absurd for members of the Conservative party; I thought that, above all, they supported the Union. The change that we introduced was to give a degree of devolution to Scotland in order to bind the Union. It is most interesting that Conservative Members now say that they want to break the Union.

Mr. Michael J. Foster: I congratulate the Home Secretary on his statement, which brings with it the real prospect of an end to the cruel and unnecessary practice of hunting with dogs. I look forward to reading the Burns report, as I urge all Members to do. Will my right hon. Friend confirm what was said way back in November 1999—that, on this matter, after the free vote has been taken, the guillotine may be used and the Parliament Act may be invoked to ensure that the will of the House prevails?

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right to look forward to reading the report. I emphasise again that I am the only person in the House who has had the opportunity to do so

and that it should be read before people come to a final conclusion, whatever side of the argument they take—or none.
As for the procedures of the House, as the Bill will be a Government one in Government time, it follows that the normal procedural arrangements could apply to any such measure.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As the other shadow Home Secretary has not been sent to earth today, I shall tell the Home Secretary that we welcome the report and the use of such a process. Furthermore, we welcome the Government's clarification that they will adopt the Bill in Government time, after a reasonable period has been allowed for people to read and understand the report. The idea of a Bill with options, which has a precedent, seems to us an entirely appropriate way to proceed.
On a practical matter, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that a report selling at £32.50 is made fully available to people throughout the country on a website and in other ways, so that everyone who wants to do so can read it?
In relation to the hunting of foxes, deer, mink and hares, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the big issue is whether the country wants to decide that hunting with hounds is the only acceptable or civilised way of dealing with the problems caused by those animals and that, if it is not, the country is entitled to decide that, in a civilised society, we might want to move on and to deal with those animals in other ways? Does he agree that dealing with animal welfare issues is just as much a priority as how we manage the public services? Does he agree that the loss of some jobs and the reordering of the rural economy is of course important, but that it should not be an absolute issue? If jobs that support a particular activity are inappropriate, they may have to change.
On the very proper question of whether the measure might be in breach of the European convention—so that there can be no argument in future—may we have not only the Government's assurance as to the compatibility of such a Bill, but, if necessary, a declaration from the courts in advance that the draft Bill would be compatible with European law? Could a decision about Wales be taken separately from one about England?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the report and for the procedure that I have outlined. When I saw the price of the report, I, too, thought that it was rather steep. However, the report is available on a website, which is important. I will not respond to the arguments that the hon. Gentleman used to support his opinions; my job today is to deal with issues of process.
On the point about the European convention, the same procedures will have to apply to the proposed Bill to determine whether it is compatible with the convention as apply to any other legislation. That point is laid down in section 19. I am afraid that there is no procedure by which it is possible to gain a pre-emptive declaration by the courts in advance of legislation in respect of a convention point any more than it is in respect of any other point that might be taken before our courts or before the court in Strasbourg. I emphasise that, even were the convention


not incorporated into British domestic law before the Bill comes before the House, it is still possible that convention points could have found their way to Strasbourg.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: I have not said this before, but let me say it now: my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is a hero. The Bill is not a distraction because Labour Members speak for the vast majority of people, and that rabble in Parliament square speak for no one but themselves. Is it not the case that the real distinction is not between town and country, but between the people who relish the idea of killing for fun and those who, like me, are repelled by that? The legislation is long overdue. Is my right hon. Friend relieved to hear that, in view of what I have said, I shall withdraw new clause 5 to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill?

Mr. Straw: I thank my hon. Friend for his compliment. In my job they are few and far between, so I will savour it. His views are very strongly held and I respect that. However, as with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not follow up those views. I am grateful to learn—as I am sure my hon. and right hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will be—that my hon. Friend regards the proposed Bill as an appropriate legislative vehicle for the issue of hunting with hounds.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: To paraphrase Lord Burns, in what I am sure is an excellent report, legislation to ban fox hunting will seriously compromise the welfare of the Government. Has the right hon. Gentleman seen anything in the Burns report or in any of the evidence that has been placed before him that shows him that there is either the necessity or the evidence to justify a ban on fox hunting?

Mr. Straw: Everybody in the House will have to make his or her own judgment about whether fox hunting should or should not be banned. That is a matter for a free vote by individuals. I remind the hon. Gentleman that many Conservative Members—not a majority, I accept—support a ban on hunting with hounds and some Labour Members support a continuation of hunting with hounds. This is quintessentially an issue for a free vote, but I have already explained why I and the Government think that it is important now to bring this matter to a conclusion.
Whether there are arguments in the Burns report that support the views of all sides—there are more than two sides to this argument—is a matter for the readers of the report. Again, I urge hon. Members to read the report before they come to conclusions about it.

Mr. Robin Corbett: May I commend my right hon. Friend on the calm and sensible manner with which he has responded to the views of the overwhelming majority of Members of the House? Did he happen to see photographs on BBC's "Newsnight" of the Beaufort hunt terrier man, Thomas Burton, feeding foxes in man-made dens? Does that not give a lie to claims that this barbaric pastime has anything to do with pest control?

Mr. Straw: Unusually, I did not see "Newsnight" that night, but I have seen newspaper reports subsequently. There is considerable discussion in the Burns report of some of the current practices in relation to hunting. As right hon. and hon. Members will see when they read it, the report is categorical that certain practices—including, although I speak only from recollection, those identified in the "Newsnight" report—should be prohibited, whether or not hunting with hounds continues.

Mr. Roger Gale: Nobody in the House will be surprised to know that I welcome any move from any quarter that hastens the day when the hunting of wild animals with hounds is brought to an end. However, I find the Home Secretary's position, with one leg on each side of the barbed wire, a little inelegant. Notwithstanding the Prime Minister's selective amnesia and his continued assertion that the previous fox hunting Bill was killed in the House of Lords, when everybody knows that it did not even reach there, it is a fact that he made a clear commitment on television that fox hunting would be brought to an end by the conclusion of this Parliament. I fail to see how that squares with the Home Secretary's statement of agnosticism on the part of the Government. Will he make himself plain—do the Government intend to bring fox hunting to an end within the life of this Parliament or not?

Mr. Straw: I have made myself as plain as possible. Our commitment is to ensure that the House can come to a conclusion about the matter on a free vote. It has always been known—there is no dubiety about it—that the Government, as the Government, are neutral on the matter. What we are doing, as I have already explained, is to ensure that Parliament can come to a sensible conclusion. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman seeks to resile from that, given the position he takes overall. As for whether there is time to do it in the lifetime of this Parliament, I remind the House that that does not necessarily expire until late May 2002.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: As a Member of Parliament who became involved in putting forward legislation to end hunting with dogs from the moment I was first elected to the House 30 years ago this month, I thank my right hon. Friend for at long last introducing legislation to deal with that odious pursuit. The junior spokesman for the Conservative party—the unspeakable in pursuit of the unbeatable—said that the Bill is a distraction, so can my right hon. Friend explain why there are three times as many Conservatives here this afternoon as there were for their pension debate last Thursday? I hope that I do not have to wait another 30 years for other of my pet causes to be fulfilled—but I am ready to hang around to make sure.

Mr. Straw: I take this opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his 30 years, and I look forward to the celebration in his constituency, which I shall attend, next month. He slightly, and uncharacteristically, understates the position on Conservative attendance, because there may now be three times as many present for this statement as there were for the Opposition day debate on pensions, but there are 10 times as many


Conservative Members present as there were for what was flagged up as a major, headline debate on crime, organised by the Conservatives just two weeks ago.

Mr. Alan Duncan: In terms of his party's policy and its purported principles, will the Home Secretary take a moment to explain to the House the basis on which he thinks it is ever right for a majority to constrain the rights of a minority?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman touches on a central issue of how liberal democracies, in the best sense of the phrase, should operate. He is, of course, right to ask that question, which has been consuming political philosophers since political philosophy first developed. Having said that, I have to say that there are many opinions on both sides as to precisely the point at which the criminal law should be imposed by the majority on the minority.
If the hon. Gentleman reads the Scott-Henderson report, published 50 years ago, he will find that it considers that issue. The committee concluded that, at that time, certain practices of hunting generally were sufficiently cruel that they should be banned, but that, at that stage, fox hunting did not come into that category. That was the test that the committee and, subsequently, the House chose to use. As the hon. Gentleman knows, those who support the ban, who include many Labour Members as well as quite a few Opposition Members, take the view that there is sufficient and unnecessary cruelty in fox hunting to warrant a ban. Others take a different view, and the Government, as I have said repeatedly, are neutral on the issue. What is clear, not least from the intense interest generated today, is that the issue can no longer be allowed to fester. Parliament needs to come to a conclusion.

Ms Chris McCafferty: May I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on his historic statement? I should like to pass on the gratitude of the vast majority of my constituents in Calder Valley, who believe that fox hunting is an astonishingly cruel and outmoded activity that has no place in a modern society.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that drag hunting provides a popular and viable alternative to fox hunting that can help to sustain similar jobs in the rural economy? When, in 1997, I visited one of the two manufacturers of riding habits in my constituency, I was surprised and delighted to find that staff expressed more concern about whether the Chancellor would put VAT on children's clothing and how soon we would enter the euro than about fox hunting. The other manufacturer exports 95 per cent. of the clothing it makes to Europe and has won the Queen's award for export to countries that do not have the fox.

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are getting into the Adjournment debate that has been half-promised by the Home Secretary, in that they are debating the issue, not asking questions. I shall take a few, but only a few, more questions, and I hope that they will be both questions and pertinent. Would the Home Secretary care to respond to the hon. Lady?

Mr. Straw: Very briefly, Madam Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. There is an interesting discussion of drag hunting in chapter 8 of the report.

Mr. Peter Luff: May I assure the Home Secretary that the people of Worcestershire,

including the city of Worcester, will regard today's announcement as a massive distraction from the real issues facing their county and the country? However, given the Home Secretary's determination to distract the House and the country in this way, will he give an assurance that one of the options contained in the Bill will be the middle way group's proposal for the licensing of hunting, which is a compromise on the issue that satisfies most sensible people?

Mr. Straw: The answer is yes, albeit not directly the middle way group's proposal. As I have said, there are more choices available than simply the one between an outright ban and the continuation of current practice. The committee of inquiry was specifically asked to consider the question of regulation and I do not doubt that the Bill will contain two or three options in addition to what would result from the Bill being negatived, which is the continuation of the status quo.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing the Bill, and express the hope that we will all read the report? Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that one of the options that he will set out in the Bill will provide for an exemption for the fell packs in the national parks? It is utterly inconceivable that people should be allowed to roam the fells—which tourists visit—shooting foxes and endangering the general public.

Mr. Straw: As my hon. Friend will see when he reads the report, different conclusions are reached about the effect of hunting with dogs on the welfare of the foxes hunted, and the effect of a ban in upland areas, compared with other areas of the country. I stated, accurately, the report's conclusion that generally there should be no geographical distinction between the regime that should apply in one area or another. However, the report went on to state that that should be the case unless there were objective reasons for differences—in other words, for a ban not to apply to one part of the midlands, say, rather than another. We shall certainly take my hon. Friend's point into account in framing the alternatives, so that they can be put before the House.

Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): Does the right hon. Gentleman recall telling The Times the following on 6 March 1998?
We do not have a mandate for a hunt ban… But you ask me what is my opinion, Jack Straw? The answer is I do not see a role for Government
in bringing in any such ban. Why has the right hon. Gentleman changed his view on that? If he covers himself by saying that the Bill will offer a number of options, may I ask him a specific and detailed questions about those options? Will the option that secures the largest number of votes win the day, or will it be an overall majority that wins the day? If the vote in this place is different from the vote in the other place, will the Parliament Act apply?

Mr. Straw: The Government do not have a mandate for bringing in a ban on hunting, and we, as a Government, are not bringing in a ban on hunting. We are seeking to respond to the clear view on both sides of the House that the matter should be brought to a conclusion.


I do not make predictions about the conclusion that will follow, except to say, as I explained, that it is a matter on which the House needs to conclude its opinion.
This has been a wonderful afternoon for some further insights into the Conservative party. We have discovered that Conservative Members are fully in favour of the incorporation of the European convention on human rights, which is a good thing. We have also discovered, from what I understand the hon. Gentleman to say, that a number of hon. Members of his opinion want a different voting system, a kind of proportional representation system, on the issue to ensure that the minority vote becomes the majority. Personally, on a free vote, I regard that as a bad thing.
On the Sunday Trading Bill, a clear and logical hierarchy of alternatives was established. That is a matter that we shall have to consider, so that the House can properly exercise its opinion. That hierarchy worked to produce a logical opinion of the House, although, as I said, I happened not to agree with it, and that is what we shall seek to do in this Bill.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Hull, North): May I declare an interest, as vice-president of the League Against Cruel Sports? That organisation has campaigned for many years for an end to hunting with dogs. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the decision that he announced this afternoon. It will be warmly received in my constituency and by the majority of people in the area hunted by the Holderness hounds.
The compromise position of the fox is a matter that concerns us all, as foxes were not asked their opinion, but my right hon. Friend could get their opinion if he listened to recordings of foxes, and also hares, being torn to bits by dogs. He would then understand the pain and trauma that they experience. An autopsy is not necessary to discover that.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. An important and interesting chapter—chapter 6—of the report deals with the definition of animal welfare that the committee followed, and its conclusion about the welfare of the relevant quarry species.

Sir Teddy Taylor: We all know that many people voted Labour at the last election because they were given a firm pledge that time would be provided for early legislation on hunting. Does the Home Secretary realise that grave suspicion will exist in some quarters about the timing of the Government's announcement? Even with a guillotine, there will be no almost no chance of enacting the legislation before the next election. Does the Home Secretary accept that the only way in which he will overcome the feeling that the Government are trying to play politics with fox hunting is to give an assurance that they will enact the legislation before they call an election? Otherwise, the announcement will simply look like another dirty public relations trick.

Mr. Straw: I understand that the hon. Gentleman was expressing his support for a ban on fox hunting; many Conservative Members support such a ban. On a point of accuracy, we gave a clear pledge in our manifesto:

we advocated a free vote on hunting with hounds. The implication was that such a vote would lead to a legislative conclusion. However, that did not happen; I have already explained the reasons for providing the same alternatives as for the Sunday trading legislation.
On enacting legislation, we intend to introduce the Bill early in the next Session, which will be in the autumn. Many examples exist of Bills that become law in six or seven months. That means that, even according to the most fevered speculation about the date of the general election, the Bill could become law.

Mr. Alun Michael: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Like many who have consistently supported a ban on hunting with hounds, I shall read the Burns report objectively and carefully as a fresh contribution to the debate. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) will do likewise, and that her substitute today will not.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we would not have had to be diverted into using Government time had not so much energy been spent on frustrating the will of the House and defeating a private Member's Bill? My right hon. Friend has made it clear that the Government will be neutral. However, if, having considered the Burns report, the House clearly votes for a ban on hunting with hounds, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will bend their best efforts towards enacting the Bill as quickly as the procedures of both Houses allow? Will he also invite the Opposition to treat the views of the House with similar respect?

Mr. Straw: It is a delight to respond to a question from my right hon. Friend, who is also an old and close friend. I do not regard the implementation of a manifesto commitment as a distraction for a Government. It is interesting that Conservative Members believe that manifesto pledges are there to be broken—they learned that trick when they were in government. We believe that manifesto pledges are there to be implemented. We are delivering on hospitals, schools, law and order and many other issues. The reasons why people vote for one party and not another is a matter for them. However, there is no doubt that when voters considered our manifesto and commitment to implementing it, they took all our pledges into account.

Mr. Peter Lilley: Will the Home Secretary establish a further inquiry to ascertain whether there is a consistent moral principle in banning hunting with hounds while permitting angling, shooting and other field sports which result in cruelty or pain to animals? In the absence of such a principle, must we not conclude that the measure is either motivated by class antagonism or is the thin end of the wedge?

Mr. Straw: Moral balance and principle must, ultimately, be a matter for hon. Members. We are elected to make such judgments. I personally thought that it would have been wrong to try to delegate responsibility for making those moral and ethical judgments to a committee, as we are here to make such judgments. As the committee of inquiry made clear, whether some sporting activities involving hunting or killing animals should or should not be banned must be seen as a relative matter.


However, the right hon. Gentleman may be saying that all current measures against gratuitous cruelty to animals and their hunting—which, in the past, involved many kinds of so-called sports—which have been supported by members of his party and of mine should be abandoned.

Dr. David Clark: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for his intention to ban the barbaric and cruel practice of hunting with hounds, which will be welcomed by the vast majority of people in the House and throughout the country. Will he confirm once and for all that, once the House has made its wish clear, the Bill will be a Government Bill subject to all the ramifications to which such a Bill is subject, including the Parliament Act 1949?

Mr. Straw: The Bill will be a Government Bill at all stages and will leave the House for the other place as a Government Bill, a clear view on its contents having been expressed by the House. As I have already made clear, all the procedural arrangements for Government Bills will apply to it, as to any other Government Bill.

Mr. Simon Thomas: I am sure that the report is excellent and makes a vital contribution to the debate. I am sure, too, that changes for rural areas are on the way. Nevertheless, the report contains a mistake, as Wales and England are not one country. Will the Home Secretary confirm that the Bill will include an option to allow the National Assembly for Wales to decide the issue of hunting for itself, as the Scottish Parliament can do?

Mr. Straw: Of course I accept that Wales and England are not one country. However, with respect, I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that Wales and England are one common law jurisdiction. Indeed, one Crown court circuit extends across the border and, historically, has always done so. The criminal law has always applied in the same way in England and Wales so, in my judgment, there would have to be strong arguments for seeking to impose a territorial distinction solely on the grounds of their being different countries, although that is a matter for the House as a whole to decide.
The report brings out a separate argument about whether there should be any objective differences between, for example, the regimes that should apply in upland and lowland areas. Finally, the issue is not devolved to the Welsh Assembly, but it would be open to the hon. Gentleman to table amendments suggesting that it should be during the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, given the vagaries of the private Members' Bill system, in the many years that we have been around in this place on a Friday, there was never a cat in hell's chance of getting a Bill banning hunting with

dogs through the House of Commons? Will he also confirm that, at the election, the Labour party made a distinct promise to give the Government and its Members an opportunity to vote to ban hunting with dogs?
Governments must be seen to be carry out their promises: that is one of the most important things in today's politics. I can therefore only wish my right hon. Friend well in this endeavour and trust that we make sure that we get the Bill on the statute book, which is something that no other Labour Government have been able to achieve.

Mr. Straw: As ever, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said and subscribe to his view that Governments should carry out their promises. We promised to provide a free vote, with the obvious implication that that vote would have a conclusion, as we are not just a debating society. We are doing that, and the merits of the case are a matter for free votes. As we have seen, opinions on the matter differ on both sides of the House.

Mr. Tim Collins: Will the Home Secretary reflect carefully on the points made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on the special circumstances in the Cumbrian fells? Is he aware that hunting there takes place not on horseback but exclusively on foot and that there is no drag-hunting alternative? Hill farmers, who have suffered enough in recent years, would feel that they had been stabbed in the back if their ability to protect their livestock were to be removed in this way. How does the Home Secretary reconcile the Government's declared wish to create one nation with the introduction of legislation that will arouse feelings of anger, bitterness and betrayal among many millions of our fellow citizens?

Mr. Straw: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's last remark is particularly realistic. Many hon. Members in his party take the same view as us, including, famously, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who is not present in the House, even though—[Interruption.] The Minister for Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), is not the shadow Home Secretary or the Home Secretary, and she is not responsible for this issue; she is fully entitled to her view.
On the hon. Gentleman's main point, the report, which I commend to him, contains many interesting insights into hunting with dogs, but not on horseback, in upland areas such as those represented by the hon. Gentleman and by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington, as well as its effect on animal welfare and the effect of any ban. As the hon. Gentleman will see when he reads the report, its conclusions for upland areas are different from those for other areas.

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 9

COMMUNITY SENTENCES: ELECTRONIC MONITORING OF REQUIREMENTS

'. After section 36A of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 there is inserted—

"Electronic monitoring of requirements in community orders
36B.—(1) Subject to subsections (2) to (4) below, a community order may include requirements for securing the electronic monitoring of the offender's compliance with any other requirements imposed by the order.
(2) A court shall not include in a community order a requirement under subsection (1) above unless the court—

(a) has been notified by the Secretary of State that electronic monitoring arrangements are available in the relevant areas specified in subsections (7) to (10) below; and
(b) is satisfied that the necessary provision can be made under those arrangements.

(3) Where—

(a) it is proposed to include in an exclusion order a requirement for securing electronic monitoring in accordance with this section; but
(b) there is a person (other than the offender) without whose co-operation it will not be practicable to secure the monitoring,

the requirement shall not be included in the order without that person's consent.

(4) Where—

(a) it is proposed to include in a community rehabilitation order or a community punishment and rehabilitation order a requirement for securing the electronic monitoring of the offender's compliance with a requirement such as is mentioned in paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 2; but
(b) there is a person (other than the offender) without whose co-operation it will not be practicable to secure the monitoring,

the requirement shall not be included in the order without that person's consent.

(5) An order which includes requirements under subsection (1) above shall include provision for making a person responsible for the monitoring; and a person who is made so responsible shall be of a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.

(6) The Secretary of State may make rules for regulating—

(a) the electronic monitoring of compliance with requirements included in a community order; and
(b) without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a) above, the functions of persons made responsible for securing the electronic monitoring of compliance with requirements included in the order.

(7) In the case of a curfew order or an exclusion order, the relevant area is the area in which the place proposed to be specified in the order is situated.
In this subsection "place", in relation to an exclusion order, has the same meaning as in section 40A below.

(8) In the case of a community rehabilitation order or a community punishment and rehabilitation order, the relevant areas are each of the following—

(a) where it is proposed to include in the order a requirement for securing compliance with a requirement such as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 7 of Schedule 2, the area mentioned in subparagraph (6) of that paragraph,
(b) where it is proposed to include in the order a requirement for securing compliance with a requirement such as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 of that Schedule, the area mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) of that paragraph,
(c) where it is proposed to include in the order a requirement for securing compliance with any other requirement, the area proposed to be specified under section 41(3) below.

(9) In the case of a community punishment order, a drug treatment and testing order, a drug abstinence order, a supervision order or an action plan order, the relevant area is the petty sessions area proposed to be specified in the order.

(10) In the case of an attendance centre order, the relevant area is the petty sessions area in which the attendance centre proposed to be specified in the order is situated.".'.—[Mr. Boateng.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government amendments: Nos. 19, 22, 24, 25, 31, 101, 108 to 113 and 119.

Mr. Boateng: The amendments relate to the electronic monitoring of community sentences proposed in the Bill. The measures will provide the probation service and other agencies with vital new tools to increase the protection of the public and to improve the effectiveness of community sentences through increased compliance and tougher enforcement.
The amendments relate to a change that we trailed in Committee, but before I say anything more, I would point out that these changes have nothing to do with the home detention curfew or electronic monitoring of prisoners on release on licence. I know that there has been some confusion on that point in the past, and I want to establish the facts early and to make it clear to hon. Members who want to address curfews and prisoners on licence that they will have the chance to do so, but now is not the time, as the amendments deal with other matters.
In Committee, I advised that, later in the Bill's passage, we would be considering how best to use electronic monitoring to strengthen enforcement of a range of orders. The amendments are the result of that further consideration. They replace clause 47 on monitoring of requirements in community rehabilitation orders and several other references to electronic monitoring of freestanding exclusion and curfew orders with a new, better-ordered and more comprehensive clause that enables the court, when imposing a community order, to secure the electronic monitoring of the offender's compliance with any of the requirements imposed by the terms of the order.
Obviously, that will include the electronic monitoring of offenders subject to curfew and exclusion. It will also, in due course, allow us to use technology such as voice verification systems, which could enable us to identify whether an offender is speaking from a location on an agreed list and whether the right person is responding to pre-planned or random checks. All such schemes would of course be properly piloted, but that is an example of the scope that the clause would open up in enforcing community sentences.
The amendments draw together powers enabling the electronic monitoring of the terms of freestanding curfew and exclusion orders and any requirements of any community order.
As I stated in Committee, the purpose of the amendments, apart from the obvious benefits in clarity and scope, is to enable electronic monitoring to be used to enforce more of the requirements of community orders. In addition, they apply to a wider range of those orders. Of course such schemes will be subject to the same rigorous testing and piloting as other new initiatives before they are rolled out.
The amendments also broaden the definition of an "affected person" in relation to exclusion requirements and orders to include not only those who have to give their consent to allow electronic monitoring to occur, but individuals who are, to some degree, being protected by the order or exclusion in question. The former group is already covered by the Bill, and hon. Members who were present in Committee will remember our short debate about persons who might have an interest.
An offender's victims would have an opportunity to be advised, as affected persons, about exclusion requirements and orders. That is reasonable and sensible. For example, if an offender, who hangs about a woman's house during the night, is excluded from those premises between the hours of 8 pm and 8 am, the victim should know that that is the case. That would tell her exactly what she should expect under the order, when the exclusion is in effect and when it is not. They are the only changes of substance that will be achieved under these amendments. The rest of the detail will remain effectively the same.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: The Minister is right to say that the issues relating to whether it is appropriate for people to be released early on tags will arise in later debates. He knows from our extensive debates in Committee that there are many such issues, but I entirely agree that this is not the right debate in which deal with them. However, I shall put some specific questions to the Minister. He will be aware that our concern throughout—indeed, it has been expressed by Labour as well as Opposition Members—has been that proper account should be taken of working probation officers' views in particular.
The Minister is well aware that the National Association of Probation Officers has expressed grave concerns about several aspects of the Bill. As he says, he trailed in Committee the fact that further changes might be made, but has he fully consulted working probation officers and, in particular, has he taken account of the views of probation committees and the National Association of Probation Officers? The concerns expressed on both sides in Committee were real. Although

it is only a relatively short time since the Committee completed its proceedings, the Government want to replace a fairly large chunk of the Bill and we want to be sure that they will not change it for the worse. I hope that the Minister will tell us about that.
I accept that many of the amendments in the group are consequential. We are discussing only one substantive change, although the grouping of amendments makes it seem as though there are many changes. We are discussing the major change in new clause 9, from which the other changes in detail flow. I hope that the Minister will also tell us whether he has taken account of the views of police officers, police organisations and the Council for Circuit Judges.
The Minister will recall that there was much discussion in Committee about whether circuit judges and lay magistrates, who are at the sharp end of using such provisions, had been consulted. There is a grave weakness in that the Government are making changes at a late stage, but they have not necessarily taken into account the views of those who will impose the sentences. There are still grave concerns. We want the Minister to tell us exactly who has been consulted on these further, detailed changes. Having said that, I do not propose to press him further, on the basis that he will deal with all those points.

Mr. Humfrey Matins: I wish to raise with the Minister four short, slightly nuts-and-bolts points. I did not serve on the Committee and come to the matter slightly afresh, but the Minister knows my background in terms of sentencing and so on. When the Select Committee on Home Affairs visited an experiment in tagging and electronic monitoring in Manchester some months ago, the stipendiary magistrate told us that one of problems was that too many people who were not the defendant turned up or volunteered to be tagged and monitored to give the defendant a free hand elsewhere. That was happening quite a lot in Manchester and we were told that it was the only way in which a breach could be made. When a person reported for tagging, no accurate check was made on whether he was the one who had been sentenced. Can the Minister reassure me that that problem has been overcome?
Secondly, I speak as a sentencer when I say that quite often nowadays, when consent needs to be given, the law seems to change from time to time. For example, one used to have to get the defendant's consent before sentencing him to community service, but that is no longer the case. The new clause provides for consent on one occasion, but not on another. Although I see the point of needing consent, that leads me neatly to the third point.
Judges, recorders and stipendiaries find that many forms of sentence are being introduced nowadays and I can tell the Minister—I was about to say in confidence, but nothing I say here is confidential—that a lot of new sentences are not imposed by the courts because the form of words for them has not been issued by the Judicial Studies Board. That is a most extraordinary point to make, but it is true. It is terribly important that either the Home Office or the Lord Chancellor's Department makes sure that all sentencers are completely familiar with new forms of sentence that are being introduced and, furthermore, with the form of words to be used. If one does not know the form of words exactly, it is all too easy to think of another sentence, which might not be quite as good.
Finally, is the Minister content that the new clause's requirements for electronic monitoring are not moving us into too heavy a cost area? Will the resources be available to ensure that those problems are dealt with?

Mr. Boateng: I am glad to assure the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who speaks with great authority on these matters, that the resources will indeed be available before the amendments are brought into effect. We are anxious to ensure that we pilot and evaluate before rolling out. That also gives us the opportunity to make an assessment as to cost and, therefore, of cost-effectiveness and value in terms of that process. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about individuals' rumoured swapping of identities in an attempt to fool those responsible for administering tagging, but I have yet to have brought to my attention a single substantiated case in which that happened. That point is developing the characteristics of an urban myth.

Mr. Malins: It is anecdotal.

Mr. Boateng: As the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, it is anecdotal. However, we are determined to ensure that that anecdote has no substantive basis and that those responsible for administering the tag are alert to the possibility that there might be an attempt to subvert the system in such a way. So far, we are not aware of a single substantiated case in which that happened.
I endorse wholeheartedly the hon. Gentleman's expression of concern that sentencers should be informed and adequately and appropriately trained in the form of words used to impose sentences. It will be important to ensure—the process has already begun in relation to other aspects of the Bill—that magistrates and other sentencers have the knowledge of the content of the sentences that they are asked to impose necessary to give them the confidence to impose those sentences. With respect, those points are well made and certainly taken.
In response to the points made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who speaks for the Opposition on these matters, I say that he over-eggs the pudding. I do not accept that concerns exist to the extent that he suggests. I believe that anyone who wants to ensure that the public are better protected sees the potential that the new technology represents in providing that better protection, and giving victims of crime, and those who might otherwise become victims, a sense of security and safety.
I have spoken to sentencers, probation and chief probation officers and those who head probation committees, and have widely trailed our proposals. Those to whom I have spoken have broadly welcomed them, and I have no reason to believe that the Home Office probation unit has not received the same response from those whom it has consulted.
I hope that, on that basis, Opposition Members will give these modest and, in my view, non-controversial, proposals a fair wind.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10

SHORT-TERM PRISONERS: RELEASE SUBJECT TO CURFEW CONDITIONS

'.In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(a) there is inserted—
(aa) the sentence is for an offence to which Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (notification requirements for sex offenders) applies;".'.—[Mr. Boateng.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Boateng: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 12—Exclusion of assault on police from power to release short-term prisoners on licence—
'In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(b) there is inserted—
(bb) the sentence is for any of the following offences—

(i) an offence under section 89 of the Police Act 1996 (assaulting, obstructing or resisting a constable);
(ii) an offence under section 38 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (assault with intent to resist arrest);
(iii) an offence under section 18, section 20, or section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (wounding, causing grievous bodily harm and causing actual bodily harm) committed against a constable in the execution of his duty.".'.

New clause 13—Court to have power to direct that power to release short-term prisoner on licence shall not apply—
'In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(a) there is inserted—
(ad) the court, when passing sentence, has directed that subsection (3) shall not apply in the interests of justice, or because of the serious nature of the offence, or because the offender is a persistent offender;".'.
New clause 14—Exclusion of offenders convicted of offences punishable by maximum term of ten years or more from power to release short-term prisoners on licence—
'In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(a) there is inserted—
(ac) the sentence is for an offence for which the maximum term of imprisonment is ten years or more;".'.
New clause 15—Exclusion of offenders subject to minimum sentence for burglary from power to release short-term prisoners on licence—
'In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(a) there is inserted—
(ab) the sentence was imposed under section 111 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (minimum of three years for third domestic burglary);".'.


New clause 16—Exclusion of sex offenders from power to release short-term prisoners on licence—
'In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(a) there is inserted—
(aa) the prisoner is subject to the notification requirements of Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997;".'.
New clause 17—Repeal of power to release short-term prisoners on licence—
'Sections 34A, 37A and 38A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 are repealed.'.
Government amendments Nos. 40 to 44.

Mr. Boateng: The purpose of the Opposition new clauses is clear: to abolish the home detention curfew scheme in its entirety. That comes as no surprise, as on several occasions the Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) have made no secret of the fact that it is to be one of their manifesto pledges. I consider that to be profoundly misguided, and contrary both to the public interest and to the safety and security of our fellow citizens who benefit from the scheme.
We have no intention of abandoning the scheme, which has had a highly successful performance record in the 16 months since its implementation. It was heralded by an all-party Select Committee report, which endorsed it, and to which a number of Opposition Members—including an Opposition spokesman—were knowing and willing signatories.
The scheme is designed to assist in the successful resettlement of selected short-term prisoners, supporting the transition from custody to the community. In the overwhelming majority of cases, that is exactly what it has achieved. At its introduction, it received the unanimous support of the Committee to which I referred—the Select Committee on Home Affairs—to which the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, among others, put his name. He has now reneged on that, and put his name to new clauses seeking to abolish or reduce the scheme. No doubt we shall be told why he has changed his mind.
The Committee's report said that the scheme would
provide adequate protection to the public because of the tagging element, and will give prisoners an opportunity to readjust to life outside prison.
That expectation has been borne out by experience.
Prison governors have shown great care in conducting risk assessments. Only about 30 per cent. of eligible offenders have been placed on home detention curfew to date, and the authorities have been notified of reoffending by fewer than 2 per cent. of those people while they have been on curfew. Overall, the scheme continues to have a high successful completion rate of about 94 per cent. I challenge Opposition Members to identify a scheme in the field of criminal justice, designed to protect the public in this way, that has a better record.
4.45 pm
Overall, the scheme continues to enjoy the high successful completion rate to which I have referred. It is an impressive record by any standards. Of course, we deeply regret any further offences committed on curfew,

and all breaches, but the fact remains that, in the vast majority of cases, the careful risk assessment conducted before a prisoner is allowed to join the scheme is working properly and the right decisions are being made.

Mr. James Clappison: My knowledge of the matter is a little rusty. Perhaps the Minister can help me. If someone who is sentenced by the courts to six months' imprisonment is released at the earliest opportunity under a home detention curfew, how long does that person actually spend in prison, when the public have been told that he has been sent to prison for six months? How long will it be?

Mr. Boateng: Sentencers know very well about the scheme. Indeed, it is not a scheme that is hidden from the public. They know very well that such a person would have an opportunity, if he were eligible—and only if he were eligible—to qualify for the scheme and to be released before the halfway mark at which he would normally be released.

Mr. Clappison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boateng: No, I will not give way again. If the hon. Gentleman would like to remain in his seat a bit, he may learn more about the scheme.
That is not a secret or hidden. It is the basis of the home detention curfew scheme and what it is designed to achieve. Someone who is sentenced to six months in those circumstances would become eligible for a HDC having served six weeks—one and a half months—of his sentence. That is not to say that, having become eligible, he would be granted release on HDC.
I hope that that assists the hon. Gentleman. It is not a secret. It is there. People will draw their own conclusions as to how best to reintegrate such people into the community. The all-party Select Committee unanimously found that the scheme was a good way of doing that. The hon. Gentleman may take a different view. Others will take the view that it is the right way. The conclusion that we have come to, having considered the all-party Select Committee's unanimous endorsement and the evidence of how the scheme is working, is that, on balance, it is the right way forward and that now is not the time to go along the route proposed by Opposition Members.
Many of the new clauses are about reducing the scope of the scheme by excluding various categories of offenders all together. I am glad to say that, in one instance—namely, new clause 10—the Opposition support our policy. Their new clause 16 recognises, as we do, that it makes eminent sense to strengthen the existing home detention curfew scheme by excluding from it sex offenders who are subject to the Sex Offenders Act 1997. That is, in any event, our practice; it has been from the outset. We now believe it right to put that in statute, but the other proposals tabled by the Opposition are far less helpful and are designed to undermine the scheme. We are simply not going to go along with that because, in our view, that is not the best way in which to protect the public.
Under new clause 12, the Opposition wish to exclude from the home detention curfew scheme those sentenced to a range of offences committed against the police, including assault; obstructing or resisting a constable;


assault with intent to resist arrest; wounding; and causing grievous bodily harm or actual bodily harm to a police officer in the execution of his duty.
The aim of new clause 13 seems to be to exclude from the home detention curfew scheme any offender who the sentencing court has directed should not be eligible for the scheme, whether in the interests of justice, because of the serious nature of the offence, or because the offender is a persistent offender, while new clause 14 would exclude prisoners convicted of an offence for which the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years or more. New clause 15 would exclude from the scheme prisoners sentenced to a minimum of three years for a third domestic burglary.
The issue of whether there should be a statutory exclusion for sex offenders was raised initially when the House first considered the home detention scheme, during passage of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. At the time, we argued for retaining a discretion to consider whether to place an offender subject to the 1997 Act on the scheme in cases in which the risk assessment suggested that there was minimal or no risk to the public and that there would be a clear potential benefit to the chances of successful resettlement, treatment or supervision.
The example on sex offenders that we gave the House at that time was one in which release to a treatment centre was judged to be central to a prisoner's release plan, and curfew was considered to be necessary to support the likely completion of the treatment. In practice, in the 16 months since the scheme went live, it has been apparent that establishments have not identified circumstances that justify releasing on HDC offenders subject to the 1997 Act. In fact, only one such offender has been placed on the scheme, and that placement was contrary to policy because the Director General's approval had not been sought, which was highly regrettable.
We have, therefore, taken the view that the time has come to include in statute an exception—that, if one is subject to the 1997 Act, one will not qualify for HDC. The exception reflects current practice and puts the position beyond doubt. The statutory exclusion will also ensure that, in future, there are no errors of the type that permitted the release of that particular individual without the director general's approval. I am glad that the Opposition join us in taking that step.
I should say—without labouring the point on the Opposition's new clauses on other exceptions—that, although I share the sense of outrage and even disgust at some of the categories of offence dealt with in their new clauses, I really do not believe that the way to deal with those offenders is to exclude them from the scheme. The scheme is designed to smooth the transition from custody into the community. We believe that if that transition is made in the context of order and supervision, it is less likely that the individuals concerned will offend again. For that reason, and because we are satisfied that, in each of the instances highlighted in the Opposition's new clauses, we have in place sufficiently robust risk assessment standards and tools to assess individual cases and ensure that the public are well protected, we do not feel that the Opposition's new clauses take the matter any further forward.
We urge the House to reject the Opposition's new clauses and to accept our new clause 10, which we believe gets the balance right. Our new clause will ensure that the public are protected by providing for a smoother and more ordered transition for offenders from custody into the community, and it will uphold the HDC scheme—which would be undermined if the Opposition's new clauses were accepted. The scheme is working and it is founded on sound policy. I urge the House to reject the new clauses whose effect would be, in effect, to wreck it.

Mr. David Lidington: As the Minister said, the amendments deal with what the Government term their "home detention curfew scheme", which might be more accurately labelled as the special early release scheme for prisoners convicted of serious offences.
As the Minister rightly pointed out, the Opposition have disliked the scheme from the very beginning. Our reservations were made clear during the early proceedings on what became the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), and my hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison)—whom I am glad to see in his place—and for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway).
New clause 17 would seek to scrap the home detention curfew scheme altogether. Our other new clauses would seek to ameliorate some of the worst aspects of the Government's early release scheme by excluding from it certain categories of offender or offence. The Opposition would wish, if possible, to press for divisions on new clause 12 and on new clause 17, although I understand that there might be procedural difficulties.
As I said, new clause 17 would scrap the special early release scheme altogether. New clause 12 would exclude from the scheme people convicted of assaults or other serious offences against police officers. The police, who are—particularly, but not exclusively—responsible for law and order in our inner-urban areas need the support and protection of the law. That includes being certain that when someone has been sentenced to prison for an assault on a police officer, they will serve the full term that the law prescribes and will not be let out of jail early because that suits the Government's release scheme.
New clause 13 would give the courts power to direct that the home detention curfew should not apply in particular cases. New clause 14 would exclude from the scheme offenders who were imprisoned for any offence that carried a maximum sentence of 10 years or more. That clause has been drafted with an eye to the Government's own proposals on immigration rules.
The Government are saying in their consultation document following the Tyson case that they propose, as a matter of rule, to exclude from entry to the United Kingdom anybody who has been convicted of an offence which, were it committed on British soil, would carry a maximum sentence of 10 years or more.
Through the new clause, we accept that the Government are right to identify such offences as serious, and worthy of condemnation and severe penalty. We are saying that, as a matter of justice, people who have been convicted of such serious offences and sent to prison for them should be excluded from the privilege of the early release scheme.
New clause 15 would exclude from the early release scheme burglars who had been persistent offenders and had been sentenced to a mandatory minimum prison term


under the terms of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, which has been consolidated into the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.
I wish to refer to the Government's new clause 10 and how it relates to our new clause 16. New clause 10 would remove from the early release scheme people who were serving a sentence following conviction for which they had been included in the sex offenders register. I welcome that concession especially because it is an aspect of the law that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere has been pressing ever since the Government introduced their original proposals for the early release scheme. Time and again, my hon. Friend and other Opposition Members have argued that the scheme should, as a matter of policy and of justice, exclude people who have been convicted of serious sexual offences and who are on the sex offenders register.
5 pm
Hitherto, the Government have said that there is no need for such statutory exclusion. They have written into the rules for prison governors to follow in carrying out their risk assessment a detailed series of steps that each must follow when considering the case for the early release of a particular sex offender. Against that background, I am glad that the Government have come forward with a concession, at least as far as it goes.
In a genuinely non-adversarial spirit, I put it to the Minister that the Government's new clause still leaves a loophole. As I read it, it would not exclude from eligibility for early release a criminal who was on the register of sex offenders because of a previous conviction but who, at the time when his case was being considered, was serving another custodial sentence for a crime that was not a sexual offence. It is not an academic prospect. I recall within the past few weeks reading of a case where a convicted paedophile who had served time in prison for such offences was subsequently released, and thereafter charged with other offences. In the end, he was convicted of an offence which, although related to his sex crimes, was not a sexual offence.
I can envisage a situation, for example, where someone is convicted of the abduction of a child, of kidnapping or of assault. He might, because of his previous convictions and his known record of sexual offending, be sent to prison on account of that non-sexual offence. However, under Government new clause 10, he would be eligible for early release under the home detention curfew scheme. Our new clause 16 seeks to relate exclusion from the scheme to the offender rather than to the particular offence for which he is serving a sentence at the time when he comes up for consideration for early release.
I would welcome the Minister taking advice on this point of detail. It may be something on which the Government wish to reflect and to which they may wish to return to at a later stage in the Bill's consideration, if they share my concern about a potential loophole in the law.
The Opposition's objections to the early release scheme remain fundamental. More than 20,000 criminals have so far been released early from prison as a result of the scheme. They are being released at an earlier point in their sentence than the normal statutory remission of 50 per cent. There are just under 2,000 offenders who are now out of prison under the scheme, when the Opposition would argue that they should still be behind bars.
Part of our objection stems from the fact that a significant number of offences have been committed by people on early release. The Minister is right to say that the number is small as a proportion of the total number of people who have been released early, but we know of 395 offenders who have been released early and have gone on to commit other crimes. Those crimes have often not been trivial. They have included five cases of threats to kill, 51 violent crimes, three rapes and 135 burglaries, robberies, thefts and similar property crimes. That represents a large number of victims. It may seem small as a percentage on the Home Office statistical returns, but it means real anguish, grief and loss for those individuals and families who have been the victims of those criminals who the Government have chosen to let out early.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I understand the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but do he and his party think that if a significant number of people commit offences when they are on licence, no one should have the right to release on licence? Does he take the view that, if the reduction of a sentence leads to any risk of an offence being committed, that category of release should not be permitted by law?

Mr. Lidington: I do not want to stray too far from the new clauses, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the Opposition's view is that there should be much greater honesty in sentencing, so that the sentence passed by the judge is the sentence served in prison.
My party and I believe that there is certainly a place for supervision under licence at the end of a determinate sentence or after someone has served the appropriate portion of a life sentence. We see a place for tagging being used to enforce supervision and for its use in support of non-custodial penalties, but we object to its use as an excuse for the early release—release earlier than under the normal statutory arrangements—of people on whom the courts passed a particular sentence knowing what the statutory rules were. We believe that that is an affront to justice and that is why we tabled the new clauses.
The Government's early release scheme adds to the dishonesty of our sentencing system.

Mr. Boateng: Who introduced that sentencing system? Who was responsible for 18 years for the sentencing policy that we inherited? Who is now reviewing that policy? The answer is that Conservative Members were responsible for the system and the Government are reviewing it.

Mr. Lidington: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), when he was Home Secretary, introduced proposals for honesty in sentencing, If the Labour party wants to pick a fight with us over our call for greater honesty in sentencing, no one will be more delighted than the Conservative party.
Let us consider the facts. A written answer from the Home Office at column 402W of Hansard on 23 May 2000 listed the average custodial sentences passed on people who had been released early and compared them with the actual term served. For burglars, for example, the average


sentence passed by the judge was 19.3 months, whereas the average term served was 7.4 months. For arsonists, the average sentence passed was 22.8 months and the average served only 9.8 months. For wounding, an average sentence of 15.6 months was passed, but the average sentence served was 6.2 months.
Most of our constituents would be outraged at the gulf between the sentences passed by judges in court and the sentences actually served. They would want Parliament to take whatever steps it could today to redress the imbalance in the law and to provide for greater honesty in sentencing.

Mr. Simon Hughes: This is an important matter, and I have heard the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members talk about it on the radio. I have one simple question for the hon. Gentleman: is it the Conservative party's view that what the hon. Gentleman calls honesty in sentencing would mean that significantly more people would go to prison and serve significantly longer sentences? I had understood that the Conservative approach was that roughly similar sentences would be passed, and that there would be similar numbers of people in prison, but that judges would hand out shorter sentences, which would be served in full.

Mr. Lidington: My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has made our approach very clear. We believe that honesty in sentencing and length of sentence are distinct. We assume that honesty in sentencing is desirable as a good in its own right. In calling for the abolition of the statutory 50 per cent. remission, we assume that judges would take that into account in determining the length of sentence to be passed.
We assume that the average length of sentence would come down at first. We argue that sentences for particular crimes should be longer, especially mandatory minimum sentences for repeat offenders. We have said consistently that we would regard it as a Conservative Government's prime duty to ensure that sufficient prison places were provided to house the criminals whom judges decided to send to prison.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I agree with the principle underlying my hon. Friend's contribution, but my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and I are the only two people in the Chamber who have sent people to prison. Does my hon. Friend accept that when a judge sentences a person to a term of imprisonment, he goes on to say that the person will serve half the sentence and that the remainder will be served on licence? I accept the use of the word "dishonesty" in this argument, but the sentencing judge is not guilty of any dishonesty.

Mr. Lidington: Absolutely. The judge knows what he is doing. Our criticism of what I have termed dishonesty in sentencing is that although the arrangement is familiar to those who operate the courts and the criminal justice system, the general public do not understand it. The sentencing process must be made more transparent.
I turn now to the Government's claims for the home detention curfew scheme. The Government argue that the scheme is a rehabilitative measure that works. I want to

repeat that the Opposition support effective rehabilitation measures. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald in particular has made clear her passionate determination to establish a more effective rehabilitative regime in our prisons.
However, the Home Secretary has said that he measures the success of the home detention curfew by the occurrence, or absence, of convictions for reoffending only during the curfew period. In a written answer of 7 April, he made it explicit that any offending that took place after the curfew period had ended was not a factor in defining the success rate of the home detention curfew scheme.
That seems a crazy way of carrying out an assessment. If the scheme works in terms of rehabilitating criminals, surely we ought to see some results, in that criminals subject to home detention curfew will be less likely to reoffend after the end of their sentence and the curfew period, than other prisoners who have not had the benefit of early release under the Government's scheme. I think that the Government's measurement of their scheme's success is deeply flawed.
5.15 pm
Our case boils down to this: it is a matter of justice that the early release scheme should be ended. Among the 20,000 criminals who have been released early so far there are 210 people who have either committed or attempted homicide. There are people responsible for 3,342 violent crimes. There are 1,187 burglars, 811 robbers, 4,433 thieves, 3,236 drug offenders and 125 arsonists. I believe that the Government's scheme is an insult to justice and an insult to the law-abiding constituents whom we are sent here to represent and to defend.

Jackie Ballard: I think that we all agree that imprisonment has a number of roles. One is the proper punishment of offenders; another is the protection of the public. By definition, while people are in prison they cannot commit further crimes, although there is some argument about the effectiveness of deterrence when it comes to committing further crimes after they leave prison.
Prison must also have a rehabilitative role. If it is to carry out that role effectively, we need to keep the provision for early release on licence with, in these cases, the added safeguard of tagging. In cases in which people have benefited from the experience of imprisonment, and the risk of early release has been properly assessed, we believe that the scheme enables the proper transition for a number of prisoners from prison to freedom. We must not underestimate the fact that some people find that difficult to cope with, because for them, prison is an easy option, as they cannot offend while they are in, and coping with freedom is a challenge for them. It is in the interests of public safety that ex-prisoners are successfully reintegrated into the community.
As the Minister said in his opening remarks, eligibility for early release does not imply that a person will automatically be released. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said that Conservatives Members would press for a vote on new clause 12, if not on one of the other new clauses in the group. In that case, the Liberal Democrats will oppose it.

Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) for his comments,


particularly on the sex offences provisions in new clause 10, and I am grateful to the Minister for his reply to my question. I also admired his bravura performance of ministerial confidence. The scheme that he is defending—early release through home detention—is so alien to the common sense and sense of fairness of the majority of members of the public that it takes a performance such as his to try and sweep it under the carpet and get away with it.
It would be churlish of me not to welcome new clause 10 on sex offences and the fact that the Government have, after all, accepted the point that we pressed on them from the start—namely, that serious sex offenders who are liable to registration under the Sex Offenders Act 1997 should be statutorily prevented from being part of the scheme. That is right.
I listened to the Minister's rationale for the Government's original view that, under certain circumstances, it would be possible for sex offenders to be eligible for early release. According to a written answer of 6 April 2000, there has been only one case in which such an offender was released. As the Minister accepted in his remarks, that one case illustrates just what can go wrong and how seriously it can go wrong under the arrangements that the Government have allowed to be in place for home detention curfew. The person in question had committed a serious offence of unlawful sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old girl. He was given a sentence of six months. I think that in fact he did not even serve six weeks. Because of some administrative oversight, he was released after only 35 days, and his case was not considered by the Director General, which was one of the safeguards originally recommended by the Government. The system clearly did not work then; it will be much better if, by statute, sex offenders are not eligible for early release. Most members of the public would agree with that.
The public would also be concerned at the number of violent offenders who appear to have been released under the scheme. If the statistics read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury are correct, the number is significant. Members of the public would be concerned about the overall honesty of the system—a point that my hon. Friend was right to make. I agree with the gist of the intervention made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) about how the courts operate and that judges are honest in passing sentences. The dishonesty occurs when the length of time an offender spends in prison bears little relationship to the sentence passed—when offenders serve only a fraction of the time that the public are told they will serve.
In his response to my intervention, the Minister pointed out that, under the provisions, someone sentenced to six months could be, and in many cases is, released after only six weeks Six months must not mean six weeks. Such a bulging gap strains the credibility of the public and their confidence in the criminal justice system.
I cannot accept the Minister's defence—not among his best-considered remarks—to part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, as, in essence, the right hon. Gentleman was self-contradictory. He said that the previous Conservative Government had allowed prisoners to be released after serving only part of their sentence. That is correct, although towards the end of their period

in office, they were moving towards a closer relationship between the sentence imposed and the length of time served.
However, the Minister is now adopting the position that the sentence should be less. In every case, the average sentences to which my hon. Friend referred are less than they would have been before the home detention curfew provisions were introduced. Prisoners are allowed on home detention curfew after they have served only a small fraction of their sentence in prison. We are not being honest in what we tell the public.
The public do not like such dishonesty. I am not convinced that they would be so severe in passing sentence. Research shows that, in the majority of cases—especially those involving non-sexual or non-violent offences—members of the public would not pass especially severe sentences. They do not constantly demand ever more severe sentences. What they want is honesty. That is the inconsistency in the Government's system.
The points made by my hon. Friend are correct. The new clauses will give a little assistance in improving a bad system—especially in cases involving police officers. It is unfair that the public should be told that a man who has assaulted a police officer will be given a sentence of six months, when that person will be out on the streets in six weeks. That cannot be honest.
I emphasise those points about honesty in sentencing because I am not against tagging as such. Tagging has an interesting history. It was pioneered by the previous, Conservative Government—[Interruption.] An hon. Member says it was abandoned. It was certainly not greeted by bouquets and assistance from the Labour Opposition. Whenever possible, they opportunistically extracted the maximum political advantage—whether or not their statements were consistent. They certainly did not hand out bouquets.
The previous Government were right to persist with tagging, even though there were some technical problems initially. Tagging is right as a sentence. It is also an acceptable way to deal with someone whose liberty needs to be constrained while awaiting a court appearance. It is better for such people to be tagged than to be locked up in prison. However, it should not apply to people sentenced for serious offences. The Minister will confirm that people are eligible to be tagged for offences when the courts have sentenced them to up to four years imprisonment. The offences committed can encompass serious offending.
It would be far better if we explored the use of tagging as a sentence in its own right and as an alternative in appropriate cases to people going to prison. For example, it is particularly appropriate for tagging to be considered for women prisoners. In the past few years, under the previous Government and under this Government, there has been an extraordinary growth in the number of women prisoners. Under this Government alone, the number of women in prison has risen by 30 per cent., which is faster than the rate at which men are being imprisoned. However, women do not tend to commit the serious violent offences that cause most concern to the public. The Government are creating more prison places to lock up more women while they are releasing under the home detention curfew scheme men who have been convicted of serious offences, including offences of violence.
The Government are getting criminal justice sentencing into a crazy mess. The system needs to be put right and our new clauses would go some way to doing that. However, the system is so dishonest that we need to take a much more root-and-branch approach. I hope that such an approach will come in due course so that we can give the public a system of sentencing that is honest with them and in which they can have confidence.

Mr. Malins: I do not think that it is so much honesty in sentencing—of course, we need that—but clarity in sentencing that we want. One of the problems that I face as a sentencer is that I must scratch my head before I pass a sentence. If I pass a sentence of six months, I tell the defendant that he will be released on licence after three months. Provided that he keeps his nose clean while he is on licence, that is the last he will hear about it. However, if he does not, he will return to prison to serve the balance of his sentence. The same principle applies if I pass a sentence of four years in the Crown court for a serious case of burglary. Before someone passes sentence, the question that he or she must ask is, "Wait a minute. Do I really want this person to serve four years, or shall I say four years on the basis that he or she will serve two?" It is a head-scratching exercise.
The home detention curfew scheme will cause a little more head scratching. As I understand it, when we pass a sentence, we do not mention the home detention curfew scheme at all. It is purely an administrative rather than a judicial matter. In sentencing a person, one passes what one considers to be the right sentence and warns about offending on licence. However, whether someone comes out under the home detention curfew scheme is an administrative decision and, unfortunately, the judge knows nothing about that—someone else makes the decision.
I hope that the Minister will confirm that the decision as to who, under the home detention curfew scheme, comes out and is tagged for the balance of the sentence is made not by the judiciary, but by either the Home Office or a prison governor. I might not have a problem if either of them takes the decision, but it makes it a bit difficult for the sentencer to understand whether the sentence that he has imposed will mean what he intends it to mean.
That takes us back to the thorny old question of whether release on a home detention curfew is meant to rehabilitate. Clearly, the scheme is Treasury-driven because it will save money. I remember that, in the 1980s, the Conservative party released many prisoners because it was cheaper to do that. I am sure that we did that.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: Is there not a qualitative and profound difference between releasing people early to save money and home detention curfews that attend to the rehabilitative needs of the prisoner and to the protection of society?

Mr. Malins: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not think that the home detention curfew scheme is rehabilitative. We need to see some pretty firm statistics to show that people do not reoffend, not just in the period while they are under the curfew, but in the period after the curfew. Rehabilitation is meant to be a long-term process.
The Minister will accept that we must be careful about sentencing in general. We must not take a mismatch approach by which we add to, and subtract from, the legislation each year. If the result of such an approach is that sentencers do not understand the sentences that they pass, that defendants need to employ a senior Queen's counsel to explain to them and that the public do not understand what is happening, we have a problem.
The Minister teased my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) about his work on the Home Affairs Committee, and I speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say that my hon. Friend contributed massively to the Committee during the all-too-brief period for which he was a member of it. The Minister knows as well as I do that sometimes on Select Committees one has to cede point A to gain point B and that the fact that the report was unanimous does not mean that everyone agreed with all its conclusions. Otherwise, I would have been thought to have changed my mind at least six times on various issues in the past few months.

Mr. Boateng: I am afraid that I am less charitable than the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) towards the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), but perhaps that is not a surprise, bearing in mind our respective positions. We have had a good debate, although I did not think we would.

Mr. Stephen Day: It has been brief.

Mr. Boateng: I hear the silent one mutter that it has been brief, but it has also been important in teasing out the issues and where we agree and where we do not. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) made a serious and considered contribution to the debate, and I shall reflect on several of the remarks he made. I am bound to say that I come to a different conclusion on the home detention curfew scheme, but I welcome his support for electronic tagging and the new technology as an aid to sentences. We need to ensure, however, that we have greater clarity and transparency in sentencing, and I agree with the hon. Member for Woking in that respect.
I prefer the phrase "clarity and transparency" to the language adopted by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), which rather marred his contribution. He seeks to be all things to all people in this matter and seeks to give the impression that he would, given half the chance, be tougher on crime than me or the Government. That simply is not the case. He must understand that he is being disingenuous in his call for greater honesty in sentencing, thereby suggesting that the existing system is dishonest, bearing in mind the fact that it was successive Conservative Governments who were responsible for the sentencing system that we inherited.
The hon. Member for Woking argued that one has to cede some points in order to gain others, but the difficulty for his party is that it signed up to the sentencing system for 18 years. You cannot now wriggle out of the consequences of your actions in relation to existing sentencing policy and the framework that you established when you were in government. [Interruption.] I mean the Conservatives, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you, of course, had no part in it whatever.
We recognise that the sentencing framework is flawed and we are going to change it. I look forward to a considered and constructive contribution from, among


others, the hon. Members for Hertsmere and for Woking, as well as the shadow Attorney-General, to that process. It has to be done, because we need greater clarity and transparency. I would argue that we also need, in some cases, greater toughness in terms of the length of sentences. It is however disingenuous of the Opposition, in their call for greater honesty in sentencing, to attempt to give the impression that longer sentences will necessarily be served as a result of such a policy being implemented. We believe some categories—certainly in the case of burglary and arguably in cases of violent crime, in which there has been an unacceptable increase—ought to lead to longer terms of imprisonment being served by offenders, hence the action taken by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in introducing the "three strikes and you're out" policy.
We have to understand that, although the home detention curfew scheme is designed to ensure a smoother and better-ordered transition between custody and freedom, it is part of the sentence. A home detention curfew and the paraphernalia of a tagged person are signs that society requires limitations on liberty and a certain form of order and conduct as part of a sentence served, not in a custodial setting, but in a home setting, as a precursor to ultimate liberty.

Mr. Garnier: So that our debate is better informed, will the Minister state the relative cost, on a daily, monthly or annual basis, of a home detention order, a tagging order and a prison place; and, in the event of there being no tags or home detention orders, how many additional prison places the Government would need at their disposal?

Mr. Boateng: I shall certainly write to the hon. and learned Gentleman with that detailed information. His intervention enables me to draw the House's attention to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Woking that the measure is Treasury-driven. That is a simplistic approach. As the figures that I will make available to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) will illustrate, a degree of saving to the public purse is entailed, but that should not cause the House to underestimate or ignore the added benefit and value of creating, after a rigorous process of risk assessment, a framework of law and technology around the offender by which that individual's transition front custody to the community is better managed.
That issue was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) in his intervention. The HDC scheme continues to have a high successful completion rate of about 90 per cent., and only 2 per cent. have been notified as having reoffended while on curfew. That demonstrates that, in the vast majority of cases, the careful risk assessment undertaken is working as it should, and that the care and attention given to the matter by governors is ensuring that public protection is enhanced by these arrangements for the return to the community of offenders who have been carefully selected as eligible and properly placed on the scheme. It also demonstrates that the risk assessment carried out manages and minimises the risk of individuals reoffending during that period.

Mr. Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Boateng: I am not giving way now. The hon. Gentleman has just returned to the Chamber, and we must make progress.
The effectiveness of the risk assessment management and the minimisation of risk during the period that would otherwise have been served in custody are the proper measure of the success or otherwise of the scheme. That does not mean that one should overlook the ultimate goal of rehabilitation in the medium and longer term. That applies across the board, but we judge the success or otherwise of the scheme by what occurs during that period.
This group of amendments includes Government amendments Nos. 40 to 44, which are technical changes relating to the power to attach conditions to release licensees. The amendments will ensure that all young offenders who are released following a period of detention may have electronic monitoring or, in the case of over-18s, drug-testing requirements imposed as release conditions.
Amendments Nos. 40 to 44 correct a technical flaw in the current draft of the Bill which would prevent young offenders—including those up to 21 years of age—from having electronic monitoring or drug-testing conditions imposed. That, clearly, is undesirable, for the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Hertsmere. Technology has something to offer sentencers in terms of public protection, and should be used.
The need for amendment arises from the fact that clauses 56 and 58 refer specifically to those released from sentences of imprisonment. However, sentences imposed on young offenders are not legally defined as sentences of imprisonment. Young offenders are sentenced to periods of detention and may serve their detention in accommodation other than a prison. The exclusion of young offenders from the provisions in the Bill was not intended, and the amendments remedy the situation, while retaining the proviso that drug testing conditions will not be available in respect of under-18s.
With that explanation, and following a good debate, I hope that the House will give the Government new clause and amendments the fair wind that they deserve.

Mr. Garnier: I had not intended to contribute to the debate, but some of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks have provoked me, in a gentle way, to do so.
Any savings that will be achieved through the home detention curfew or by the tagging of early-release prisoners will fall to the benefit of the Treasury as a whole. I invite the Government to allow the Prison Service, which is already under huge financial strain—I speak as a Member of Parliament for a constituency that has within it Gartree prison and also part of the estate of the Glen Parva young offenders institution—to keep the savings made, so that it can reinvest that money in additional facilities at prisons and in additional services for prisoners, especially for the rehabilitation of prisoners.
I note that in my constituency prison, Gartree, the probation service is less well represented in terms of numbers—the quality, I am sure, is excellent—and the education services have had to be cut as a consequence of Government restrictions on Prison Service finances. I trust that the Government, who, I have no doubt, believe in honesty in all things, will allow honesty in financing, as well as honesty in sentencing.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 11

REMAND CENTRES

'.In section 43(1) of the Prison Act 1952 (places of detention provided by Secretary of State), paragraph (a) (remand centres) is to cease to have effect.'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 32 to 39, 63 to 96, 100, 103 to 107 and 117.

Jane Kennedy: In Standing Committee, a new clause—now clause 55—was introduced to abolish the sentence of detention in a young offenders institution. Following the abolition of that sentence, all convicted defendants over the age of 18 will be sentenced as adults. The Government consulted on those proposals last year and there was broad agreement on them. In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said that further minor amendments would be tabled around the clause. We are now considering those amendments.
Despite the number of amendments—that may have caused a few raised eyebrows among Conservative Members—I assure hon. Members that they are minor and consequential. We are also considering an amendment to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to provide a power for the police to authorise a young person's release on bail for administering a reprimand or a final warning. If I take a few moments to explain the amendments and answer one or two questions about them, it may save later interventions. I am conscious that there is a great deal of interest in the next group of amendments.
New clause 11 and one set of amendments in the group deal with the repeal of the power to set up remand centres. No remand centres have ever been set up under that power. Clause 55 is founded on an acceptance of the age of majority as the best sentencing threshold. That removed the principal rationale for the existence of remand centres.
Another set of amendments in the group relates to the repeal of section 108 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. The amendments will ensure that all persons aged 18 or over who are detained for default in the payment of a fine, or for contempt of court, are treated in the same way.
A further set of amendments in the group will ensure that the legislation governing sentences issued by courts martial reflects as far as possible the changes that clause 55 makes to the civilian sentencing regime.
The main principle of abolishing the sentence of detention in a young offenders institution has not changed. The amendments, together with consequential changes to other legislation, make no substantive changes. They simply complete the legislative picture.
I am conscious of the interest in the next group of amendments. I therefore invite the House to give these amendments a fair wind.

Mr. Hawkins: The Parliamentary Secretary is right to say that there was some discussion in Standing Committee

of the way in which the original provisions would apply to young offenders. We also accept that the Government's proposals were fairly trailed in Standing Committee. We divined that many amendments in the group were consequential.
All parties share a special concern about the treatment of young offenders. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows from our debate in Committee, before becoming Members of Parliament, many members of the Committee in differing professional capacities had experience of dealing with young offenders. I prosecuted and defended in juvenile courts over several years. It is fair to say that hon. Members are united in wanting to ensure a proper regime for young offenders.
We acknowledge the accuracy of the Parliamentary Secretary's comments on the relevant clause of the Prison Act 1952. It has not been used, and there is no reason for it to remain on the statute book. We are not therefore considering a matter of enormous division between the parties. However, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, as I asked the Minister of State, Home Office on an earlier group of amendments, to confirm whether the Government have consulted the National Association of Probation Officers, the Council for Circuit Judges and others about the further amendments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) stressed, we think it important that those who are sentencing are clear about what the Government are doing.
In his helpful and considered contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Woking referred to the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which the Minister of State has repeatedly prayed in aid on Second Reading, in Committee and in his remarks today. He and the Parliamentary Secretary will be aware that a substantial part of that report relates directly to young offenders.
I reject some of the more specious arguments used by the Minister of State in our earlier debate. Indeed, to use his own word, he was disingenuous. In examining the whole Select Committee report which, as he said repeatedly, is unanimous, one must look especially carefully at the sections relating to young offenders. I am sure that we are not divided on that. As the Government arrange the passage of the Bill through its remaining parliamentary stages, I hope that they will examine carefully what is contributed by experts in various professional fields dealing with young offenders, and that they will take into account further submissions.
In Committee, both Ministers said, fairly, that they had an open mind about looking at the treatment of young offenders and ideas that may be brought forward. I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary, in winding up the short debate on this group, confirmed that the Government's mind remains open to further suggestions. Clearly, this is an area in which there can be great scope for expert opinion to put forward new ideas all the time. In the light of concerns expressed about the disposal of young offenders in serious cases, arising from the treatment of Thompson and Venables in the James Bulger case, which we debated extensively in Committee, the Government must be careful to bear in mind the views of the European Court on such matters.
In relation to what was said about treating all those over 18 as adult offenders, in the past and under Governments of both parties it has been an article of faith in the criminal


justice system that there are special factors affecting those between 18 and 21. The Parliamentary Secretary will recall that, in Committee, we debated the tragic history of suicides of young adults remanded to adult prisons, and of those in places such as Feltham and Armley. The Government take that suicide rate very seriously indeed, but I am earnest in urging the Parliamentary Secretary to say again that the Government recognise the particular vulnerabilities of those aged 18 to 21 who are serving sentences. In Committee, we had quite a lot of debate about whether 21 was a crucial age. The Government take such matters seriously, as both we and the Liberal Democrats sought to do in Committee, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm that they will continue to do so.

Jane Kennedy: I have sat through many hours of interesting debate in Committee and on the Floor of the House and have listened to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on many occasions. I cannot recall an occasion on which one could have accused him of being disingenuous. I assure the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) that my right hon. Friend has an open mind and will continue to have an open mind. I genuinely hope to reassure the hon. Gentleman on his point about the expert opinion expressed to the House on these serious matters. We bring an open mind to the issue.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point about young offenders who may currently he sentenced to a period in a young offenders institution, those who may be subject to custody for life, and those whose sentences will continue to run in the period immediately following the Bill's implementation. There will clearly be an immediate impact on the prison estate as a result of the amendments which will require management. It may be worth noting that those young offenders whom I have just mentioned and to whom the hon. Gentleman drew attention will not be disadvantaged by the change, as they will remain subject only to the maximum punishments currently available for 18 to 20-year-olds, as opposed to those currently available for prisoners aged 21 and over.
Issues such as ensuring that vulnerable young adult prisoners will not be put at risk and making sure that movement of young adult offenders between young offenders institutions and prisons takes account of their regime needs will be addressed before the changes are implemented. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that reassurance in response to his serious point.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

DEFENCE UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1971

'.It shall be a defence for a person accused of an offence under section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 that he did not wilfully permit an activity under section 8 to take place.'.[Mrs. Anne Campbell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: . I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 190, in title, line 4, leave out "dealing with".

Mrs. Campbell: It may be helpful if I begin by reminding hon. Members that section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 states:
A person commits an offence if, being the occupier or concerned in the management of any premises, he knowingly permits or suffers any of the following activities to take place on those premises.
That is to say:
producing or attempting to produce a controlled drug … supplying or attempting to supply a controlled drug … or offering to supply a controlled drug to another … preparing opium for smoking … smoking cannabis, cannabis resin or prepared opium.
New clause 1 would strengthen the defence of someone accused under section 8, which includes the words "knowingly permits". The new clause would allow an offence of wilfully permitting activities under section 8: that wording is slightly stronger. New clause 1 is grouped with amendment No. 190, which is a consequential amendment to the long title of the Bill which, in its current form, does not allow for the new clause. Amendment No. 190 makes further provision for persons suspected of, charged with or convicted of offences, as opposed to provision for dealing with such persons.
It will come as no surprise to anyone in the House that I have tabled the new clause, given my concern about Wintercomfort and my constituent Ruth Wyner who at present is serving a sentence in Highpoint prison under section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. She was convicted at the same time as her co-worker John Brock, who is not my constituent but who, nevertheless, was working in the charity, which is based in my constituency. I do not pretend to be an expert on the issue, but I shall use my experience as a constituency Member of Parliament of visits to homeless accommodation and day shelters, to explain why a change to the existing law is necessary.
6 pm
People work in this part of the charity sector because they care about people, and not just ordinary people, but those who have problems, which are often severe. They may be angry and disturbed, and many of them have lost hope. I have enormous admiration for the workers who want to help such people, and I feel in awe of the dedication that, day after day, takes charity workers into situations where people are often hostile and unfriendly, and desperately in need of help.
The charity Wintercomfort in Cambridge offers not only a cooked meal and hot drinks, but a place where homeless people can see a doctor, have a haircut and wash and change their clothes. It helps them to feel civilised and human. In many cases it offers a sympathetic ear so that people can talk about their problems, and it helps them out of a crisis. Such work is essential if we are to rehabilitate homeless people who may have spent many years on the street.
We know from surveys that many people who are homeless are addicted to drugs. The exact figure is not known. According to my latest edition of The Big Issue, the number is somewhere between 20 per cent. and 70 per cent. of the homeless population. I would never condone homelessness shelters becoming havens for drug abusers or places for dealers of hard drugs to make a quick buck. That is not shelters' intention, and such activity is disruptive to the local population.
If, however, there is drug taking and drug dealing on a shelter's premises, despite the best measures being taken, it should be a defence for a person charged under


section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act that it was not wilfully permitted. That provision is needed to safeguard the livelihood of the many dedicated men and women who do a very difficult job to the best of their ability and to protect them from possible criminal prosecution.
I shall address the precautions that charity workers must take now to avoid prosecution, and I hope to demonstrate that theirs is not a simple task and that it would be easy for somebody to fall into the same trap as my constituent Ruth Wyner. The 1971 Act applies to anyone who is a director, manager, deputy manager or team leader or anyone in control of the premises. Other workers and even volunteers also need to be aware of the Act, since anyone who has the authority to exclude someone from the premises would be considered to be concerned in the management. That is the advice of the charity Release which was published on the internet shortly after Ruth Wyner and John Brock were convicted. It has implications for the running of hostels and for training, which must be extremely thorough so that all staff and volunteers are aware of their responsibilities.
The supply of drugs need not necessarily take place in the building for an offence to be committed; if it is done outside the building, on the front steps or in the doorway, garden, yard or outbuildings, it still constitutes an offence. It is therefore necessary for staff to be extremely vigilant and to use mirrors and cameras and to have regular staff checks. Failure to adopt such measures could indicate unwillingness to prevent the supply of drugs and lay the staff open to criminal prosecution.
The situation is difficult because dealers do not pass drugs openly. The undercover surveillance conducted by the police at Wintercomfort indicated that drugs were not passed when staff were present, and it was only the surveillance that determined that drug dealing was going on.
A drugs policy is necessary for any organisation in this sector, and clearly it is good practice to put up notices and inform service users of the rules. The sanctions should also be clear; people who are caught with drugs are normally banned. Difficulties arise if people are banned and the police then require the names of those who have been banned.
Release has issued guidelines that suggest that a book with the names of those banned should be open for all workers and the police to look at, but confidential information, such as the reason for the ban, can be kept separately and privately and will not be open to police scrutiny. Those are only guidelines, however, and charity workers are worried that their shelters will not be used if users perceive that any information handed over in good faith will be passed to the police. There is a conflict of interest.
When my constituent Ruth Wyner first went into Highpoint prison, she was asked if she would like to train to counsel other prisoners, particularly on drug abuse. She went to her first training session and asked the inevitable question, "If somebody gives me information about drug abuse, do I have to keep it confidential?" She was told, "Of course, it is important that you keep it confidential." I find it ironic that, in prison, such information must be

kept confidential, but outside prison, in a homelessness shelter, people are expected to give names to the police. That is a difficulty that we need to resolve.

Mr. Malins: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her approach and her thoughtful and well constructed speech, which comes from the heart. The current offence is knowingly to permit drug dealing or drug taking to take place, and we think that we understand what that means. The hon. Lady suggests that the offence should be wilfully to permit that activity. I find it hard to see the difference. Is there is a real difference, and could she try to draw it out so that we are better informed?

Mrs. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman enables me to come on to my next point. There is a difference between "knowingly" and "wilfully". It is possible for workers to suspect that drug dealing is going on, but they may find it difficult to catch the perpetrators, and in that situation they would be knowingly permitting the offence to take place. "Wilfully" is a stronger description, and somebody would be wilfully permitting drug dealing if they deliberately turned a blind eye to it. There is a subtle distinction between the two, and I hope that my explanation has clarified that.
Well meaning workers who carry out their work conscientiously and diligently within the spirit of the law need an extra line of defence. That is what I propose, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will accept it.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) that the change should be made. Although it is not the practice of the House to debate a conviction, and it must be said that up to now Ruth Wyner and John Brock have not had permission to appeal against their conviction, I do not believe that they should be held to be guilty of knowingly allowing drugs to be used.
I shall give an example to support my argument. A Home Office Minister is responsible for the Prison Service, in which the supply of illegal drugs is detected only one in every 30 times that a prisoner is detected to be using drugs. In Highpoint, Ruth Wyner and John Brock are in a place where the rate of detection of drugs use is lower than that at the Wintercomfort project in Cambridge.
I should say that, before becoming a Minister in the early 1980s, I was chairman of the executive council of the Church of England Children's Society. One of the 100 projects that we ran involved young people who misused drugs. I am aware of the difficulties that staff have in trying to get those who are drug misusers to become ex-drug misusers According to the definition used by Cambridgeshire police and the Crown Prosecution Service, I would not have been surprised to join Ruth and John in prison. I hope that I would not have done so.

Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend could not have done.

Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend says that I could not have done, but in practice, if I knew that those who occasionally misused drugs were present, or if I were responsible, as a director or manager, for a project that had a needle exchange system—clearly, people who


misused drugs would be involved—I would know that drugs users used the facilities. Therefore, as I understand the Cambridgeshire Two case, I could have been convicted if I could not show that I had prevented any exchange of drugs for money. I hope that I would have been allowed leave to appeal against conviction, and I hope that they will be allowed leave to do the same. I say in passing that it would be interesting to calculate how long a sentence they would have completed in jail before their leave to appeal against conviction could be heard.
If the Home Office is concerned about new clause 1—I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) for the way in which she moved the motion—it should tell the law authorities that, because this is an untested case, they should bring forward the appeal and the application for leave to appeal to next week. If the higher court allowed leave to appeal against conviction and allowed the appeal against sentence, that would at least provide a chance for the House to know what the state of the law actually is, as well as remedying the injustice involving those two people.
During the march from Hyde park to Trafalgar square on 25 March, the most telling slogan was "Help the homeless, jail the social workers." I am concerned about prison governors and Home Office Ministers as well as social workers. People under the control of the state in prison were detected as having used illegal substances 18,000 times last year—in simple terms, they had used drugs. The number of people who were prosecuted in the Prison Service and allied employment was three. Two thirds as many people were prosecuted in the Cambridge case as in the whole Prison Service during the past 11 or 12 months.
One of the reasons why I am sensitive to the matter is that one of my brothers-in-law—Dr. George Reid—is a trustee of Wintercomfort. This country owes a debt of gratitude to his colleagues and those in similar projects throughout the country. We have a choice: should those who misuse drugs and who are on the streets be ignored, or should people try to work out what they basically need? They need the opportunity to remain in touch with the kind of medical services that the hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned. Should not they have a chance to be helped to come off drugs?
I pay tribute to Ministers and the Prison Service for the practical help that is available to drugs misusers in prison. I understand that that they even go so far as to have drugs-free wings in some prisons. Help similar to that provided in prison should be provided out of prison. Wintercomfort and the Bus project were trying to provide such help, but the impact of those convictions has been to close access rather than to open it. Many people around the country need open access to the schemes.
The hon. Member for Cambridge referred to The Big Issue. I do not know to which edition, but I bought the teenager-edited issue at about 1 o'clock today from someone on the non-swinging bridge between St. Paul's and Bankside. People under the age of 20 had written very openly about subjects about which they felt strongly, one of which was access to drugs. If a pupil says that drugs are available in a school, will the school governors, the education authority or the head be open to the same charge as that which the hon. Lady refers in the extra, stronger defence that she proposes, which might help those who are against drugs?
In the Wintercomfort case, it was clear that Ruth and John were against the use of or dealing in drugs. In fact, secret surveillance was required by the police, not the policeman who was passing; it was part of the protocol—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Hon. Members can refer to relevant cases in discussing the Bill, but they should not seek to interfere with the process of the courts. I hope that that is clear.

Mr. Bottomley: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is one of the reasons why I made it clear that there was no present leave to appeal against conviction. I said that, in my view, there should be, but I made that remark in passing. An application for leave to appeal is in a different category, but I have moved on from that passing reference. Your remarks have reminded us that there is an urgent need not just for new clause 1 to be considered, but for the Home Office to ensure that, if it wants to establish that there is no need for the law to be changed, the leave application is heard quickly.
I was referring to schools. So far as I am aware, until now, no head teacher, governor or education authority has faced a similar charge to that faced by the people in Cambridge. If we need to protect those in our schools who try to ensure that drugs are not available there, or, if they are available, that dealing and their use are stopped, I suspect that those who say, "Something needs to happen in my school because I know drugs are there and want to stop it," will be guilty of knowingly allowing drugs to be provided. Or must that unit, project, social project, school or prison be closed, if necessary in extremis? That was said in the case to which I shall not refer again. That is a disgrace.
If Ministers care about those who are helping the homeless and trying to reduce the number of people affected by drugs, those issues and new clause 1 matter. We have seen in the newspapers this week how many glamorous writers in this country appear to have had a heavy drugs habit, but should we convict editors and proprietors for knowingly employing those who misuse drugs? The underlying point is that the people who do a decent job for some of the least well off in society, who have the most need to come off drugs, need to be supported, not to be locked away in a place where there is more drug misuse than in the projects that they run.

Mr. Paul Flynn: I am happy to support new clause 1 and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) on tabling it. To understand the need for new clause 1, we must appreciate the precise nature of what is normally known as homelessness or rough sleeping. Only very briefly, and rarely, is the lack of a home the problem with those who sleep rough. In the great majority of cases, the problems for those who persistently sleep rough are not the transient ones of parental abuse or family trouble, but those of mental ill health and alcohol or drug addiction.
Large sums are being spent to overcome the problems of homelessness, but all the schemes end up dealing with long-term problems involving a relatively small group of people. The great difficulty is to take them into homes where they can spend the night away from the streets, but is it reasonable and practical to expect those people to end


their addictions that night—immediately? We know that there are schemes in other countries in which intermediate homes are provided, but they are not practicable or possible under British law. Those who come into the homes will say, with the best will in the world, that they will never touch a drop of alcohol or take a drug again. They often stay dry or do not use drugs for a short period, but inevitably, there is a great danger that those who have alcohol or drug addictions that stretch back many years will backslide.
There is great fear throughout the organisations and places in this country that deal with homeless people. With the best will in the world, and although they will make every effort to ensure that people do not take drugs on their premises, there is a real possibility that drugs will be acquired from outside. There is no way that anyone can ensure that drugs are not taken and it is wholly unreasonable that those who work for such organisations should risk ending up with a prison sentence, perhaps of four years.
Making a change is essential. As the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) said, we are in a strange position. Drugs turn up in unexpected places. This weekend, we heard of a drug turning up where one would least expect it. I do not know whether the head of the household will be arraigned before the courts and threatened with a sentence. Drugs are in prisons, in schools—everywhere. The people who do wonderful work for the homeless feel demoralised and frightened by the present situation, but we can give them a confidence boost by passing this valuable new clause.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) for introducing the new clause and it will not surprise the House to learn that, like others, I received a large amount of correspondence from people who support a change of the law in this direction. Their experience is a practical one of which we are all very conscious, and it does not matter whether a person offers youth service provision or runs either a shelter for homeless people, as in this case, or a centre in which people stay overnight or during the day.
Many of those who have management responsibility, the more removed responsibility of a trustee or a committee of management responsibility could be caught by the law and, if I may say so to the hon. Lady, it is entirely appropriate for her to have put the issue before the House. There has been a conviction and the matter has been dealt with. The people involved must pursue their appeal and I support the view of the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) that the sooner it can be dealt with, the better. That is in everybody's interest and I hope that those who manage court and appeal business not only read our debate—we can make sure that they receive a copy—but respond to it.
We need to get to the essence of the matter, and I want to make two points. The first concerns the broad issue of how to deal with people who, technically, might be caught. To be honest, unless people with important management responsibility in social work in the wider sense are able to risk being with potential criminals, a lot of the work will not be done. I used to be a youth leader and the implication of that was that I sometimes dealt with

people who had weapons or drugs on them. Unless I had their confidence, I would never get into the relationship that allowed me to deal with the issue.
Members of Parliament have similar experiences. A single parent came to my door on Saturday after being referred to me. That person's giro had not come, the children were at home and the family had no money. I took the best steps that I could. I went to the person's house and we then tried to sort things out with the Benefits Agency on Saturday evening. We are all often in positions in which we could have a responsibility to people who could break the law; we do not know their circumstances. The two people who have been convicted assumed that responsibility as part of their job. They took in vulnerable people who were at risk and near the margins of offending.
The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) was absolutely right to say that people can become homeless as a consequence of a number of factors. I remember a tragic incident. A person came to my surgery who in three months had gone from having a home, being married and being employed as an officer in the services to having no employment, no marriage and no home. He had also become addicted to drink. Inevitably, the engagement requires the risk. The hon. Member for Cambridge is therefore right to say that we need a definition in law that does not risk the prosecution of people who are not knowingly party to the commission of offences and do not encourage those offences.
The second issue is the debate about the proposed wording and the law as it stands. I guess that we shall hear from the Minister a summary of the case law on the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. There is plenty of it and plenty of people have pleaded as a defence that their case did not comply with the terms of the law. The Bill should contain a legal definition that distinguishes between those who specifically and unequivocally know that somebody is dealing in drugs and do not take action—in colloquial terms, they go along with it, and do so actively rather than passively—and those who are in a position from which they may suspect, have concerns about or even be aware of possibilities of drug dealing, but do not participate in, condone or associate themselves with it, although it is part of their work.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Cambridge will not object if I say that it may be that Parliament needs two bites at the cherry to get it right: tonight's debate and the formal response as well as negotiation, in collaboration with the Home Office and others who have made representations to us, to find a form of words that works.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman rightly goes far beyond the debate held in Westminster Hall on 29 February and takes us back to the discussions that took place before and after the 1970 general election. It was absolutely plain that the provision was to deal with those who organised drags-type parties and could say, "I didn't see it; I wasn't involved." That is very different from what he and the hon. Member for Cambridge have spelled out this evening.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right. I practised in cases in which such a crime was the charge and recollect that the provision was intended to deal with people who sought commercial gain, whether they


operated in a nightclub, a bar, a pub or other premises. Basically, turning a blind eye meant that they were able to facilitate the passage of drugs through their kebab house, pub or club. I know of loose management of commercial premises in my constituency which has given a place a reputation. The hon. Members for Cambridge and for Newport, West will know of examples in their constituencies and Members of the House do not have to be very streetwise to learn about specific places that are more likely than others to be venues for such activity. Even the slightly older Members soon get to hear about it.
I went into a certain establishment on my way home from the House late one night to get some food and remember being told that, if I did not know it already, this was the place where, at any moment during the night, such activity was likely to take place. It is not the place that the hon. Member for Newport, West uses when he stays up in London during the week so he is quite safe.
The hon. Member for Worthing, West is right to say that the law was not intended to deal with social workers or the equivalent who run such places, or those who do a professional job in an effort to rehabilitate and support people. Nor was it intended to catch those who knew that they had to take risks, but did not conspire with others to break the law. The law is being misrepresented. We can have our views about the sentence—none of us was in court for the trial that has been referred to—but there is widespread public disaffection with the way in which the law has been applied in that case.
Not only have people written to us in significant numbers, but I know that in my own party, steps have been taken to have the matter debated more widely and to call for the law to be changed. That is entirely appropriate and if we can manage to achieve that before the end of this parliamentary term, the hon. Member for Cambridge will have done the House, her constituent and the colleague convicted with her a service. I hope that we make the law more like the law it was intended to be—one that does not sweep up people who were never intended to be criminalised. To be honest, they will not be able to do their jobs properly if we keep on the statute book a law that is interpreted in such a way.

Mr. Dawson: I associate myself with the congratulations offered to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), and also with what hon. Members on both sides of the House have said about the need for the Government to deal with this important matter as quickly as possible.
At Christmas, I spent a little while at a night shelter in my constituency. The shelter has operated over many Christmases, and I have often visited it, but I have never witnessed such anxiety among people there—one or two of them paid workers, but most of them volunteers—who, for goodness' sake, had given up their Christmas to offer comfort and support to some of the most vulnerable people in Lancaster.
Those workers and volunteers were extremely worried about their own positions in the light of the case in Cambridge. Even the first whiff of concern about drugs dealing led to the police being called immediately, with sniffer dogs, and to the whole place being searched from top to bottom. It is to the credit of all concerned, not least those who were using the night shelter—and the police,

and the staff of the shelter—that the search, which in fact revealed nothing, was taken in good part; but it was profoundly disruptive to what had been a pleasant evening at Christmas.
I hope that the Wintercomfort case represents a significant aberration. However, it sent a chilling message to those who work with vulnerable people, often in extremely difficult circumstances and for little or no pay. They may be under physical threat, and they are likely to experience emotional difficulties; the hours are long, and the pressures are many. I hope that the situation can be resolved.
I believe that the Government are determined to deal with drugs issues, and to help with the rehabilitation of drug addicts and those involved in the complex world of drugs sub-cultures. Many difficult issues confront those who work in such a setting: there are tremendous subtleties. Sometimes there are hints of what is going on, and sometimes there is more evidence. Sometimes, I suppose, it is necessary to allow a situation to develop in order to deal with it properly. I regularly talk to my local police divisional commander, who tells me that, while he is aware of criminals operating in the division, it is sometimes necessary to allow that to continue in order to catch the criminals and deal with the matter properly.
It seems to me that, in the case we are discussing, two people committed to social work in the most difficult circumstances have been dealt with in a draconian way. The issue is plainly of great concern to Members on both sides of the House, and it needs to be dealt with. The Government need to take a view, and people working in such circumstances need proper protection.

Mr. Hawkins: I, too, compliment the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who has done the job that all of us, as constituency Members, seek to do in drawing attention to a serious issue in her area. The same applies to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), who—along with others—explained his personal connection with one of the trustees of the project, and his general concern about the issue.
I think that we all recognise that there is no more serious issue than that of drugs. I know from my experience in the courts both prosecuting and defending in drugs cases, and from my experience as a constituency Member, that there are many dedicated people who try to wean others off drugs. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) mentioned his dealings with such people, and, like all constituency Members, I too have met a number of them. In recent years, I have worked closely with Dr. Tony Blowers and the Surrey drug action team, and I know that there are similarly dedicated people in all areas. No doubt the Minister will join me in paying tribute to them.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Cambridge will not consider me churlish if I say that all of us, as Members of Parliament, must recognise the truth of the old saying that hard cases make bad law. We must also be conscious of the separation of powers doctrine. It is for Parliament to make laws, and for the courts to interpret them. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rightly warned us all not to stray over the boundary and comment on the courts. In relation to the case that we are discussing, I have only read what has been in the press, and all of us who have ever dealt with court cases know that it is often not possible to


obtain a full picture from press reporting. Sadly—although this is not a criticism of them—journalists frequently do not fully understand the nuances involved in a court's response to a case. It may be necessary to have sat in the court to know exactly what went on. I therefore do not wish to comment on this case, but I will say that we recognise that the issues are serious.
The hon. Member for Cambridge presented her views very reasonably, as did all the other speakers, and we look forward to seeing how the matter progresses. However, the official Opposition will not support the hon. Lady's proposal. Although we feel that she was right to draw the House's attention to what happened in her constituency, we think that the new clause is akin to a private Member's Bill. She has made her case, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West and others, and we shall be interested to see how this difficult issue develops.

Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) has used this Report stage as a vehicle to raise a case that she has raised privately in the past with my officials and me, and has also raised in a related debate in Westminster Hall. I congratulate her on her assiduity and determination in pursuing her constituent's interest.
It would not be proper for me to comment publicly on the Wintercomfort case, and I do not intend to do so. The matters involved have been before the courts, and are the subject of appeal. I should say, however, that, as far as I am aware, this is the first prosecution of care agency staff—it is, I believe, the first to be drawn to the House's attention—since the 1971 Act came into force. Care agencies have a duty to uphold the law; they are in no way exempt from it. The fact that this is the only case brought against care agency staff since the 1971 Act would not seem to support the contention that the current law in some way works against the interests of therapeutic interventions in this difficult and complex area, or works in a way that inhibits care staff from carrying out their proper functions and duties.
Section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 makes it an offence for an occupier or person concerned in the management of premises knowingly to permit certain specified actions to take place there: the production or attempted production of a controlled drug; the supply or attempted supply of a controlled drug; the preparation of opium for smoking; and the smoking of cannabis.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Boateng: Not at the moment.
Section 8 replaced a similar section in the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 and was specifically drafted to ensure that only a person with guilty knowledge could be caught by its provisions. Section 8 as drafted properly requires those concerned in the management of premises to accept responsibility for taking all reasonable steps that are available to them to prevent drug dealing.
I want to allay some concerns that anyone reading Hansard might have stimulated in them by the suggestion that, to found liability under section 8, it is enough to know that people on the premises use drugs. That is not

the case. The law is very clear, which is why we do not need to amend it as my hon. Friend suggests. What is required is that someone responsible for the management of premises should knowingly permit certain actions to take place on those premises; the offence is committed only if that person knowingly permits or suffers the illicit activity to take place. If he or she takes reasonable steps to deal with the problem and does not condone, encourage or turn a blind eye to the activity, there is no question of the offence having been committed.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Boateng: May I just finish, because both my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and the hon. Gentleman have had their say? I intend to lay out what we believe the law is. Then I will of course give way, first to my hon. Friend and then to the hon. Gentleman.
It was argued that, if people, for example, did not tip off the police as to their suspicions that someone was taking drugs on the premises, that would in some way breach section 8. Nothing in section 8 should give cause for that belief. What is required is that they do not condone, encourage or turn a blind eye, and that they take all reasonable steps to prevent the premises from being used in that way.
Let us draw on our own experience. We had the discussion in the debate in Committee. Many of us here have run youth clubs of one sort or another. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) has; I have; and I suspect that other hon. Members have. There is a decision we must make when running a youth club: do we or do we not allow the stuff on the premises? It is a decision that a number of us have had to make in our own lives.
Once we make the decision, we enforce it. We say, "We are not having drugs on the premises. If you use drugs on the premises, you are out", and we enforce that. We are required to ensure that the youth club is managed in such a way that, if people are caught smoking on the premises, we tell them to leave and they do so. If they do not, we may well have to call the police. No one who takes that line in relation to the management of premises will find themselves falling foul of section 8.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is very difficult for those of us who are concerned with the particular case to accept what the Minister is saying, because some of the issues that he is canvassing were brought up in the case, which we have been warned not to go into in detail. If the Minister could more easily stick to what the law was thought to be for the case under discussion, it would make for a rather better debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that I made it plain earlier that it is possible to refer to the case in very general terms. I see no reason why the points that are being made cannot be made in that way. I think that that is what the Minister is trying to do.

Mr. Boateng: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
6.45 pm
The law is as laid down in a succession of Court of Appeal judgments to cope with the matter. The case to which the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge referred has, at first instance, its own very specific facts. I do not intend to go into that case. It is, of course, open—subject to the direction given by you Mr. Deputy Speaker—to hon. Members to raise it in a general manner, as they see fit. I do not seek to do that. I seek to share with the House the law as it currently is, and the interpretation by the Court of Appeal and existing case law of the impact of section 8.
The impact is as I have described it. For the offence to be made out, there is a requirement for an individual knowingly to have committed, or to have suffered, the illicit activity on the premises. If reasonable steps are taken to deal with the problem and there is no action to condone, encourage or turn a blind eye, the offence is not committed.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I refer back to a point that my right hon. Friend made at the beginning of his speech. He said that it was not necessary to change the law because there had been only one such conviction under the law. Does he agree that the case has given rise to enormous anxiety among people working in the homelessness sector, who are very worried that they will now be caught in exactly the same way?

Mr. Boateng: I have not said in terms that we do not need to change the law because there has been only one case. What I said is that the fact that only one prosecution has been brought shows that there is not a widespread problem of care activity being inhibited by ill-founded prosecutions, accusations and convictions in this area. It is different from the gloss that my hon. Friend has put on it, but, having heard her and being aware of the concern that the publicity around the case has generated, we are concerned to ensure that there is clarity on the activities of care agencies in that important area. As has been said—it is certainly accepted by me—some very difficult and challenging tasks must be performed by dedicated and committed workers in the front line in relation to drugs and to the care and support of vulnerable and, at times, difficult and damaged people. Such workers need to be reassured and supported in their work.
Therefore, the Government and the relevant agencies are considering what further guidance should be issued to those who work with homeless drug misusers to clarify the law, and proper practice and procedure in that area. Clearly, there are concerns out there and they need to be addressed. We are anxious to ensure that they are addressed while the existing law continues to be upheld, as it must be upheld for very good reason.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: rose—

Mr. Boateng: Once I have given way to the hon. Gentleman, I will come to that.

Mr. Bottomley: The House will be grateful for the Minister's comments on consultation. It would be very useful if he included the Association of Chief Police Officers in that consultation, as I think that some chief

police officers would issue guidance to their forces that is quite different from that issued to the Cambridgeshire constabulary.
Will the Minister also include the Prison Governors Association in the consultation? Is it not true—on the issue of turning a blind eye—that, if prison governors know that drugs are getting into their prisons and extra resources and more hidden cameras would enable detection of those drugs, but that, if they do not get those resources, they would be in the same position as social workers who are unable to deal with drugs on their premises? I do not want to trade points of law with the Minister. As he said, we are dealing with an unusual case on which the Court of Appeal has not yet delivered a judgment, and neither he nor I can put ourselves in the court's position.

Mr. Boateng: As I have previously said to the hon. Gentleman, it is profoundly misconceived to compare the position of prison governors in relation to drugs in prison with the position of a care agency manager. Prison governors are required to take all reasonable action to deal with the use and misuse of drugs in prison—not only to prevent drugs from entering prisons, but to seek to detect and dissuade those who use drugs when they do enter prisons. Prison governors are given a range of powers and facilities, which they exercise, to take that action.
How the hon. Gentleman puts his case is entirely a matter for him, but comparing the position of a prison governor with that of someone who manages a care agency or those who are engaged in front-line work is not his best point. I see the attraction of making such a comparison, as there clearly are concerns about drugs in prisons, but it flies in the face of reason to suggest that prison governors are likely to fall foul of section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Mr. Flynn: Is not the difference between the two circumstances the fact that prison governors have a group of people who are confined to prison, under their control and surveillance, 24 hours a day, whereas those who run places such as Wintercomfort supervise people for only a small part of the day? Additionally, those people are not only free to go outside and to make outside contacts, but are well used to disguising their addictions. Are not prison governors much better placed to be responsible for drugs misuse than those who run places such as Wintercomfort?

Mr. Boateng: I shall not be drawn down that particular path, because I simply do not think that the situation of a prison governor and that of a front-line worker in a care agency are analogous. My hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Worthing, West and I clearly disagree on that point, and they will make their point as they see fit.
Section 8 was widely drawn intentionally to apply to all public and private premises and was not designed solely to deal with the type of premises that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) drops into for a late-night snack on his way home or that the hon. Member for Worthing, West described as causing concern in the swinging 60s, when he was young. The 1970 Hansard extracts of the Committee's debates on the 1971 Act show that the Act was drafted deliberately to include not only pubs and clubs but care agencies and any other premises where there was a concern to ensure that no unlawful drugs are supplied.
For many years, across the country, drug treatment agencies, probation hostels and homelessness projects have acted on the basis that they need to take action to stop drugs from being supplied and used on the premises. That was, has been and always will be very much part of what those organisations do to create a desirable environment. In no circumstances is it desirable that people should turn a blind eye to—or in any way condone, encourage or collude in—the supply and use of drugs on premises.
It is quite reasonable that the law should require those who are concerned in the management of care agencies to accept responsibility for taking all reasonable action to prevent drug dealing. Managers can and do take a range of actions to combat drug misuse on their premises. Managers and staff should ensure that all reasonable action is taken, in accordance with the law, to prevent the supply of controlled drugs on the premises.
The key lies in an effective drugs policy which is known and understood by managers, staff, residents and others who use the premises. They will also understand that that policy has been developed on the basis of best advice, involving liaison with police and health agencies. Such a policy is the way forward and the basis of good practice.
Managers across the country have daily to deal with those issues. We owe the overwhelming majority of them a debt of gratitude for the way in which they perform that function.
We are unable to accept new clause 1, which we believe would weaken and certainly make less clear the provisions of the 1971 Act. The new clause would enable owners and managers to argue that, although they had what is currently considered to be a guilty knowledge of illegal activity, they had not permitted it wilfully, by showing that they had taken some, but not all reasonable measures to prevent the production, supply or use of illegal drugs on their premises.
I do not think that, in those circumstances, the new clause would achieve the clarity and transparency that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and the other hon. Members who tabled the new clause seek to achieve to enable those who do that difficult and complex work better to order their affairs.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister may not be able to answer this question now. If he cannot, I should be grateful if he would write to me on it. He said that, in the context of care provision, the measure was used for the first time in the case that we discussed. Can he give us the figures on how frequently the measure has been used generally since 1971?

Mr. Boateng: No; but I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman on that.
Clarity is crucial in the drafting of criminal offences. I do not believe that new clause 1, as drafted, would meet that test, as those who tabled the new clause intended it to do. However, I well understand the concerns about the general point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge articulated, while avoiding comment on the specific case. In considering further guidance, we shall certainly bear in mind the contribution of all hon.

Members to this debate. It has been an important debate about a serious issue and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it in the way that she has.

7 pm

Mrs. Anne Campbell: I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate, which has been important in terms of clarification. I thank also my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the courteous way in which he responded to my concerns.
I accept that care agencies are not exempt from the law, nor would I wish them to be so. It is important that we take steps to ensure that there is no illegal drug abuse on premises where we can reasonably expect people to be protected from such activity. It is important that care agencies should not be exempt from the law; indeed, that was not what I was arguing.
I was arguing that there should be more clarity, and my right hon. Friend has said that he will issue guidance. I hope that that will come soon, because of the enormous anxiety that the case to which I referred has created. Of course, care workers must take reasonable steps to show that they have not knowingly permitted or suffered actions to take place. They must not condone, encourage or turn a blind eye.
I believe that reasonable steps were taken in the case of Wintercomfort when people who were suspected of drug taking were excluded from the premises. That does not appear to be a sufficient way of demonstrating that reasonable steps have been taken. Many people were excluded—not on the basis that they were seen to be exchanging drugs or money but, in some cases, simply on the basis that they were suspected of doing so. It may have been because of their behaviour. They may have been sitting close together in a huddle, having a conversation which looked as though it was not intended to be overheard.
My right hon. Friend maintains that this is not a widespread problem. I will be happy if that is the case, but there is a concern, held by many in the sector, that having once brought a successful case and gained a conviction, the police might be encouraged to bring others, and innocent victims may be caught.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does the hon. Lady agree that some of the more interesting words used by the Minister of State were that, often, Court of Appeal judgments in these sort of things helped to make the law clear, and that it would be convenient if the Court of Appeal could do that in this case?

Mrs. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has been assiduous in pursuing this case and makes an important point. Like many others, I will read the words of my right hon. Friend on the clause with care. I hope that the further guidance from the Government will be issued and I urge that that be done as quickly as possible. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ACT 1978—MAXIMUM TERM OF IMPRISONMENT

'—For section 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (Punishments), there shall be substituted—

"(6) a person guilty of an offence under this Act shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or to a fine, or to both;
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.".'.—[Mr. Lidington.]

Brought up, and read the First time

Mr. Lidington: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 3—Repeat Child Sex Offenders: Minimum Sentences—

'.—(1) (a) Subject to subsection (b), this section applies where a person over the age of 18 years is convicted in England and Wales of a sex offence against a child and has previously been convicted in any part of the United Kingdom of a sex offence against a child.

(b) This section shall not apply to any person to whom section 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (Mandatory life sentence for second serious offence) applies.

(2) Where the person referred to in (1) above has one previous conviction for a sex offence against a child, the court shall impose either

(a) a sentence of imprisonment of at least five years, or
(b) a sentence of life imprisonment.

(3) Where the person referred to in (1) above has more than one previous conviction for a sex offence against a child, the court shall impose either

(a) a sentence of imprisonment of at least 10 years, or
(b) a sentence of life imprisonment.

(4) The court may not impose the prescribed sentences specified in (2) and (3) if it is of the opinion that there are specific circumstances which relate to any of the offences or to the offender which would make the prescribed custodial sentence unjust in all the circumstances.

(5) Section 58 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (Sentences extended for licence purposes) shall apply to sentences passed under this section.

(6) In this section "sex offence against a child" means any of the following offences where the victim or intended victim of the offence was or would have been under the age of sixteen years at the time of the offence or intended offence:

(a) offences under the following provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 1956—

(i) section 1 (rape);
(ii) section 5 (intercourse with a girl under 13);
(iii) section 6 (intercourse with a girl between 13 and 16);
(iv) section 10 (incest by a man);
(v) section 11 (incest by a woman);
(vi) section 12 (buggery);
(vii) section 13 (gross indecency);
(viii) section 14 (indecent assault on a girl);
(ix) section 15 (indecent assault an a boy);
(x) section 16 (assault with intent to commit buggery);
(xi) section 23 (procuration of a girl under 21);
(xii) section 28 (causing or encouraging prostitution of, intercourse with, or indecent assault on, girl under 16);

(b) an offence under section 1(1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 (indecent conduct towards young child):

(c) an offence under section 54 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (inciting girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse);

(d) an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (indecent photographs of children);

(e) any offence under

(i) section 70 of the Army Act 1955;
(ii) section 70 of the Air Force Act 1955; or
(iii) section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957,

of which an offence under paragraphs (a) to (d) would constitute a corresponding civil offence (within the meaning of that Act)

(f) any offence of aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring or inciting the commission of the above offences;

(g) any offence of conspiring or attempting to commit such an offence;

(h) any offence under the law of Scotland or Northern Ireland that, if committed in England and Wales, would constitute an offence under paragraphs (a) to (g) above.'.

New clause 4—Possession of Indecent Photographs of Children—

'.—For section 160(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 there shall be substituted:

"(3) a person guilty of any offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on conviction, on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or a to fine, or to both;
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.".'.

New clause 5—Procuration of child under sixteen—

'.—For section 23 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (Procuration of girl under twenty-one), there shall be substituted—

"Procuration of child under sixteen

It is an offence for a person to—

(a) procure or attempt to procure a child under the age of sixteen for the purposes of sexual activity anywhere in the world with a third person;
(b) incite or attempt to incite another to procure a child under the age of sixteen for the purposes of sexual activity anywhere in the world with any person."

(2) In the second schedule to the Sexual Offences Act 1956, in the column headed "offence", for the term "Procuration of girl under twenty-one (section 23)", there shall be substituted "Procuration of child under sixteen (section 23)"

(3) In the second schedule to the Sexual Offences Act 1956, in the column headed "punishment", for the term "two years" relating to "Procuration of girl under twenty-one (section 23)", and an attempt to commit that offence, there shall be substituted "ten years".'.

New clause 6—Indecency with children—

'.—For section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 (Indecent conduct towards young child), there shall be substituted—

"—(1) In this section, except where otherwise stated, 'child' means a person under the age of sixteen years.

(2) Any person who—

(a) knowingly commits an act of gross indecency with or towards a child, or who incites a child to commit such an act with that person, or with another, or
(b) travels with the intent of committing any act of gross indecency with or towards a child; or
(c) knowingly employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices or coerces a child to engage in, or to assist any other person to engage in, an act of gross indecency with or towards any child; or


(d) transports a child with the intent that that child engage in an act of gross indecency,

is guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or to a fine, or to both.

(3) Any person who—

(a) abducts, detains or otherwise restricts the liberty of a child for the purpose of sexually exploiting that child; or
(b) organises or knowingly facilitates such abduction, detention or restriction.

is guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or to a fine, or to both.

(4) Any parent, guardian or other person having for the time being custody or control of a child who knowingly permits that child to engage in, or to assist any other person to engage in, sexual activity, or who knowingly permits the sexual exploitation of that child, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or to a fine or to both.

(5) References in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to the offences mentioned in the first Schedule to that Act shall include offences under this section.

(6) Offences under this section shall be deemed to be offences against the person for the purpose of section 3 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 (which restricts the trial by the United Kingdom courts of offenders connected with visiting forces).".'.

New clause 7—Use of computers to commit act of gross indecency with a child—

'After section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 (Indecent conduct towards young child), there shall be inserted—

"Use of computers to commit act of gross indecency with a child

1A.—(1) In this section, except where otherwise stated, 'child' means a person under the age of sixteen years.

(2) Any person who uses an electronic communications system, including (but not limited to) computers, computer networks, computer bulletin boards and newsgroups, computer chatrooms, the internet, and other analogous electronic means, for the purposes of

(a) engaging in an act of gross indecency with a person he knows or has reason to believe is a child; or
(b) engaging in a sexually explicit discussion with a person he knows or has reason to believe is a child; or
(c) soliciting a person he knows or has reason to believe is a child to engage in any that would constitute an offence under section 1 above or under subsections (2)(a) or (2)(b) of this section is guilty of an offence and shall be liable
(d) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or to a fine, or to both; or
(e) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

(3) References in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to the offences mentioned in the first Schedule to that Act shall include offences under this section.

(4) Offences under this section shall be deemed to be offences against the person for the purpose of section 3 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 (which restricts the trial by the United Kingdom courts of offenders connected with visiting forces).".'.

Government amendments Nos. 12 to 18 and 55 to 62.

Mr. Lidington: The Opposition have tabled a group of amendments designed to address a number of difficulties in the law relating to sexual offences against children. There are three aspects to the group. The first is that we believe that, in a number of cases, the existing maximum sentences are simply too low—in some instances, low

almost to the point of risibility. They do not have proper regard to the gravity of the criminal offence that the law defines.
Secondly, we believe that we have identified some areas in which the current law is deficient and needs to be updated. Thirdly, we believe that the law needs to be strengthened to cope with the new and insidious threat posed by child pornography transmitted via the internet; and to deal with the problem, identified in a number of recent court cases, of paedophile offenders using internet chatrooms as a means of trying to entrap young children and establish contact with them, with a view to committing more serious criminal offences later.
I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford), who has worked hard on this issue and lobbied my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and me about the need for these changes to the law. I know that he feels strongly about this campaign.
New clause 2 would increase the maximum penalty for taking, making or distributing indecent photographs of a child from the present three years to a new level of 10 years. We believe that these are serious, arrestable offences and that the maximum penalties that the law current provides are simply inadequate. To many constituents, a maximum penalty of three years for an offence involving child pornography would seem trivial: a maximum more appropriate to a traffic offence than to an offence of this seriousness.
In the Republic of Ireland, the crimes targeted by this amendment warrant maximum prison sentences of as much as 14 years. The principle is that children under 16 cannot in law give consent for their bodies to be used sexually. People who force children to engage in sexual acts without their consent are committing the most vile crimes imaginable. It is our contention that the people who take, distribute or show photographs of this nature are, in effect, responsible for sexual offences. They are causing children, against their will and contrary to the law, to engage in sexual demonstrations. We believe that the law should provide a more serious penalty than it does now.
New clause 3 would impose new and higher penalties upon people who were convicted for the second time of a sexual offence against children. This is a principle with which the House will be familiar. The principle was introduced in respect of the most serious sexual offences such as rape and in respect of serious violent crimes and persistent burglary by the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997—one of the last Acts of Parliament to go on the statute book before the last general election. We believe that it is right to extend the principle to paedophile offences.
The new clause proposes that in a case where someone is convicted for the second time of such an offence, the judge should impose either a determinate sentence of no less than five years in prison or, alternatively, a sentence of life imprisonment if the judge decides that the threat to public safety is such as to warrant a life sentence, with all that that entails in terms of being able to keep that offender under supervision for the rest of his life.
New clause 4 would raise the maximum sentence for the possession of indecent photographs of children from the current level of six months to 10 years. We are told by the police that they sometimes catch people with literally thousands or tens of thousands of such photographs in


their possession. I know of one case where the police found a man in possession of 35,000 different pornographic photographs of children. Some of them involved children as young as two. In theory, under current law, the court could pronounce a sentence for each photograph, and so impose in aggregate a very long sentence on the offender. However, in practice that does not happen. We therefore believe that a higher penalty is appropriate.

Jackie Ballard: It would help if the hon. Gentleman explained on what basis he has calculated that 10 years should be the maximum sentence for such offences. There is a big gap between six months and 10 years. What research has he undertaken, or how has he arrived at 10 years?

Mr. Lidington: The analogy that we have chosen is based on the law that relates to property. The maximum sentence for stealing is 10 years. Receiving stolen goods carries a heavier maximum penalty of 14 years. I am not wedded to 10 years. If other hon. Members present a persuasive case for a different penalty, so be it. However, I believe that a sentence of six months is too short. The public would surely expect us to allow the courts to impose a much longer sentence than the statute currently provides.
There is also an issue of principle. It is not merely a matter of getting tough with particular offenders. If we tightened up the law on the possession of pornographic material, it would make life more difficult and more risky for those who are involved in producing and distributing child pornography. There could be an indirect benefit to the law enforcement agencies in trying to crack down on the trade.
New clause 5 deals with offences of procuring children for sexual purposes and inciting others to procure children. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will be able to say whether this is a subject that the Government intend to examine, perhaps following the report of the current review into sexual offences. The present law is complicated and out of date. For example, it does not offer equal protection to boys and girls, and it does not provide for an offence of inciting somebody else to procure a child.

Mr. Garnier: One of the provisions in new clause 5 is novel in this area of the law, although it has been seen in conspiracy law relating to terrorism. If the clause took its place on the statute book, it would catch those who commit offences of procuring anywhere in the world if they are British subjects and can be brought within our jurisdiction. That would be a useful addition to the criminal calendar. Many people leave the United Kingdom to go abroad to commit what are loosely called sex tourism offences. Despite the private Member's Bill that passed to the statute book either this Parliament or at the end of the last Parliament, there is a role for the House in passing Government legislation to deal with extraterritorial sex offences committed by British subjects.

Mr. Lidington: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. He has drawn the attention of the House to an important detail of the new clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley drew attention to a case in which a man approached the proprietor of a sex shop, seeking child pornography and "live action", as he termed it—in other words, sex with children. The police were able to arrest him, but they had a difficult time making charges stick because the only law available to them to draw on for a charge was that which involved a charge of the man having procured a girl, and having done so specifically with the intention of having sexual intercourse.
The new clause is designed to cover procuring children for any type of sexual offence, rather than for sexual intercourse itself under the law as it stands. It would help the police in establishing the evidence that they need to deal with such offenders, who are a menace to society.

Jackie Ballard: Having read the new clause, I raise a genuine query. The proposal provides that it will be
an offence for a person to … procure a child under the age of sixteen for the purposes of sexual activity.
As has been said, that would apply only to British citizens. How would the provision work in countries where 14 is the age of consent? In Italy and some other European countries, the age is below 16.

Mr. Lidington: I believe that we should have laws that allow us to provide protection for children that we as legislators believe to be appropriate. I shall examine the detail in the light of what the hon. Lady has said.

Mr. Garnier: It is not my job to give the House a lecture on double actionability. However, one of the possible answers is that a British defendant might be caught only if the crime that he committed was a crime both in the foreign jurisdiction and in this jurisdiction. If the two were not able to be brought on that basis, there would be no offence. However, it is open to Parliament to make laws that it thinks fit. If the House says that it will be an offence for anyone to act in the manner set out in the new clause, subject to any better advice from the Minister of State, who is an extremely experienced barrister in criminal cases, I think that the law will be as stated in the new clause.

Mr. Lidington: New clause 6 deals with indecent conduct towards children. Again, we think that the present law is complex and inadequate. The police can use the present law to protect boys under the age of 16, but 14 to 16-year-olds can be protected only if they have been assaulted by a man. As I understand it, girls of 14 to 16 are not protected at all. The new clause would both simplify and update the law. It would include all children regardless of gender, and it would increase the maximum penalty to 10 years. We believe that the clause would allow police to arrest offenders at stages prior to their having physically abused a child. Such preparatory offences already exist in other areas of criminal law.
Finally, new clause 7 deals with the problem of the use of computers to promote paedophile activity. This is something about which a number of the organisations involved with Internet service providers have expressed concern. The chief executive of the Internet Watch Foundation said recently that 90 per cent. of the hotline


calls which its switchboard received were about child pornography. He added that the websites were not the main problem and said:
By and large, Websites are legal. Most of the illegal material is in the much less controlled area of Usenet news.
He continued:
the new frontier is Chat Rooms, which are in real time. So what goes on there is not susceptible to the sort of process we have of getting material reported, looking at it and then investigating.
There have been several recent cases in which it has been shown that paedophiles have sought to use chatrooms to make contact with children. One case, reported recently by the BBC, involved a 47-year-old man who introduced himself to a teenage girl as a 15-year-old when they first began swapping messages. The girl, who was only 13, agreed to meet the man, who admitted on the internet to being 18.
Thankfully, the girl's mother, who was suspicious of this unknown teenage boy, went with her daughter and was horrified when she found out that there was a middle-aged man behind the messages. The case was described by the chief inspector who investigated it as most disturbing. He said that the girl could have been placed at considerable risk.
In the recent Lockley case, Judge Peter Fingret at the Old Bailey called on the Government to seize the opportunity for an overhaul of the law on child pornography and to deal in particular with the problem of paedophiles using the internet.
We believe that it is time for such changes to be introduced and we hope that the debate that we have initiated can play a part in bringing that about. We look to the Government to tell us how they plan to deal with the issue, which we believe is a matter of increasing concern to many of our constituents.

Sir Paul Beresford: I hope that I can be succinct, even though we are dealing with six new clauses. The House will recognise the importance of this subject. When we were discussing a four-legged predator, we had a full House—presumably because there was disagreement—whereas now that we are considering two-legged predators who damage babies and children, the House is virtually empty, no doubt because there is general agreement at least on the idea behind the new clauses.
The idea is to broaden the action that the police can take and to increase the penalties for criminals who make little apparent effort to rehabilitate themselves. Perhaps most important, we have suggested changes to make the system proactive.
New clause 2 would change the maximum sentence and create a serious arrestable offence, giving the police a little more clout in trying to deal with paedophiles. As I understand it, at present, if the police have a warrant to search the home of a suspected paedophile, that person can just up sticks and walk without the police having any possibility of holding him. I understand that, if the offence were made a serious arrestable offence, the individual would be required to stay with the police if they so required it.
Most serious arrestable offences carry sentences of 10 or 15 years to life. Sexual offences of this class against adults carry maximum sentences of 10 years or more. That

might answer the question put by the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard). I hope that the House will agree that children should have at least the same protection as adults—arguably more, because they are more vulnerable.
The photographs are appalling. The aim of the photographs of the fox that were referred to earlier is to shock, whereas, in terms of physical and psychological damage to babies and children, the photographs distributed by paedophiles are unprintable and cannot be shown in the newspapers. Such pictures would certainly change the mind of anyone who felt soft on the issue. Those who take such photographs are forcing children to take part in sexual acts without their consent. Many children never properly recover from the psychological and physical trauma inflicted on them at such a young age. Many countries take a different approach from ours. Ireland has a maximum sentence of 14 years, and some of the states of the United States have a maximum of 20 years.
Modern technology enables paedophiles to feed and stimulate their and others' fantasies. We must recognise that and increase the sentence available to try to stimulate thinking towards stopping such action.
New clause 3 is in the classic "Three strikes and you're out" mode. It is well known that paedophiles are among the most difficult of criminals to rehabilitate. We need to approach the matter by saying that, if they persist, rehabilitation has failed, and we need to protect society by putting them away for a bit longer. We are not only protecting society; we are protecting its most vulnerable members—hence the idea of an incremental increase or "three strikes and you're out".
New clause 4 would extend to a prison term of 10 years or more or fine or both the maximum sentence on conviction, on indictment, for possession of child pornography. The Gary Glitter case shocked many people. This Glitter individual had tens of thousands of pornographic pictures of children, some of whom were under two, yet lie received only a six-month sentence—that was the maximum—and spent a very short time in prison. That is not unusual. It is sad, and reflects badly on us.
United Kingdom law should view the possession of such quantities of pornography in the same way as it perceives those who handle and receive stolen goods. If an individual is convicted of handling or receiving stolen goods, the maximum sentence is 14 years. For a pornographic photograph to be taken, the child has to have been abused. The stealing of goods carries a lower maximum of 10 years, which reflects the approach of cutting off the source that attracts the sellers and producers.
I find it hard to believe those who collect child pornography when they say that they do not want to abuse children. Ray Wyre, who works with convicted paedophiles, is considered an authority and often quoted. In David Howitt's "Paedophiles and Sexual Offences Against Children", Wyre makes it clear that
If a man buys "child pornography" he does so for one reason and one reason alone … The fact that he may not have done so is more likely to be a question of availability or the fear of getting caught than revulsion at the very concept.
I hope that that will be key to our approach this evening.
New clause 5 is a complex clause that would update and broaden the Sexual Offences Act 1956 by recognising that the age of consent is universally set at 16, not 21, and—


unlike Members of Parliament in 1956 or thereabouts—recognising that protection against paedophiles should apply to boys as well as girls: in other words, it would make the legislation gender-neutral.
The new clause would replace "sexual intercourse" with "sexual activity", because some paedophiles have dodged prosecution by virtue of the fact that, legally speaking, their activities have fallen just short of sexual intercourse.
7.30 pm
New clause 5 would introduce a new offence of inciting a third party to procure someone under the age of 16 for the purposes of sexual activity. That would meet the difficulties experienced by the police in a recent case, in which a person sought to procure a young girl for quite appalling sexual abuse by means of the internet. Fortunately, the police managed to arrest the person, but they could bring only relatively minor charges with distinctly insignificant sentences. Consequently, I believe that the maximum sentences for such crimes should be increased.
Any hon. Member who hesitates about the importance of that needs to know about a previous case involving a person called Undermark. When he was arrested, he was attempting—persistently and seriously—to procure for his perverted sexual gratification a child so young as to be in nappies. I expect that all hon. Members will find that staggeringly hard to believe.
The new offence set out in new clause 5 is important, as it would enable the police—for the first time—to be proactive so that paedophiles could be stopped before they damaged a child. The law at present is more reactive, and there is a much higher risk that a child will be hurt before anything happens.
Proposed paragraphs (a) and (b) of new clause 5(1) would extend the application of the legislation to anywhere in the world. That has been mentioned before. It gives one a good feeling to think that, with sufficient evidence, police will be able to arrest a person as he waits for his first drink on a Thai airliner at Heathrow. However, the provision would go further. In a recent case, a person was trying to procure a very young girl over the internet. He was accessing the internet in California, but a police sting there led to the notification of the police in this country. As a result, the man was arrested before he was able to procure the girl.
New clause 6 would protect children of both sexes up to 16—the age of sexual consent. The present law applies only to children aged 14 and under. That fails to recognise that many children below the age of sexual consent but older than 14 can be victimised by paedophiles, with the justice system being unable to act.
I understand that the police have been able to use section 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956—which relates to gross indecency or attempted gross indecency with another man—to protect boys between 14 and 16. However, that does not apply when it comes to protecting girls.
Once again, new clause 6 is proactive. It would allow police to arrest offenders before they have physically abused a child or children. That approach is used already in respect of other areas of criminal activity—for example, it is a crime to go out equipped to steal.

The difference is that new clause 6 is proactive, and I hope that the Minister will accept it, as it would help to prevent the damage to the child that can result from a reactive approach.
I turn to the sickening matter of parents or guardians who betray their great trust and responsibility by sexually exploiting the children in their care. I doubt that any hon. Member who had met such people would not agree that a maximum sentence of 10 years was appropriate.
New clause 7 would update the law by enabling the police to arrest paedophiles who use computers to engage with children by means of the internet in what is called cybersex. The matter was brought to my attention when I visited Charing Cross police station. I sat for about an hour with a Metropolitan police officer, scanning chatrooms and the information going to and fro. An enormous number of people were using the rooms. The word for what they were trying to do is "groom": they wanted to groom children in the sense that they wanted to lure them into their net. Their hope was to secure a meeting with a child, and their subsequent intentions were obvious. The experience in that room was staggering. I left wondering whether the thinking of a third of the population—male and female—was quite alien to what I consider normal.
I hope that the Minister will take the new clauses seriously, as they are intended to be a positive, proactive and modernising step forward in assisting police in the many paedophile units around the country to catch paedophiles and so prevent them from harming and damaging children.

Jackie Ballard: I am sure that all hon. Members abhor the sexual abuse of children and their exploitation for sexual purposes. The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) hinted that some people were soft on the matter, but I do not think that he will find any such softness in this House. However, 16 is not accepted all over the world as the age of consent for sexual purposes. It is the age below which the House has decided that people are children, and should be treated as such in connection with sexual offences. It must be remembered also that the age of 16 has not always been accepted for those purposes even in this country.
I believe that it would be more appropriate to have a more general review of sentences appropriate for sex offences than to take a few random offences and to fix what the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) admitted were fairly arbitrary maximum sentences for them. In general, Liberal Democrat Members oppose mandatory sentences, but I am not sure of the Conservative attitude. Conservative Members support mandatory sentences for sex offence cases but oppose them in others—for example, in connection with some well-known manslaughter cases.
Our approach to mandatory sentences is consistent. We believe that it should not be for politicians to determine sentences, but for the judge to take into account all the circumstances in relation to the sentencing guidelines that have been laid down. New clause 3 would bring in mandatory sentences for repeat sex offenders, but also contains what appears to be a get-out provision, allowing courts to take specific circumstances into account. I hope


that, in his response, the hon. Member for Aylesbury will explain how a mandatory sentence can remain mandatory when such a get-out clause can be invoked.

Mr. Garnier: The hon. Lady said that her party was not in favour of mandatory sentences. Does that mean that Liberal Democrats oppose the mandatory disqualification of breathalysed drivers found to be over the drink-driving limit? Do they also oppose the mandatory life sentence for murder?

Jackie Ballard: I shall not be tempted to discuss offences outside the remit of the new clauses, but the straightforward answer is that, in general, we are not in favour of mandatory sentencing.
New clause 5 deals with the procurement of children internationally, in respect of which the current law does seem to need amending. However, the hon. Member for Aylesbury admitted that a general review of sexual offences was under way at present. That would appear to he a more appropriate forum for dealing with the matter.
New clause 7 also brings up a matter that needs to be addressed. Given the Government's modernisation programme, I should have thought that they would be looking at the problem of pornography on the internet, and at the fact that the net can be used to procure unknowing children.
I hope that the Minister will welcome the fact that new clauses 5 and 7 raise serious issues. I shall he interested to hear his response.

Mr. Malin: I shall be very brief. I have listened to the debate very carefully, and one conclusion is inescapable: the world of today involves internet pornography on an international scale. Parental control was much easier in the old days of the top-shelf magazine than it is in today's world of the internet.
I am the father of two teenage children. I am terrified of the unlimited access that the internet gives them to the sort of material that all hon. Members abhor. I am unable to do anything about it, however, because I do not know how it works. This is a very dangerous long-term development—it is an international problem.
I hope that the Minister will recognise my real concerns about the future—the need for some control and for some serious thinking. This is one of the biggest and most dangerous issues to affect families and teenagers today. I support what my hon. Friends have said, but my focus throughout the past 10 or 15 minutes has been on an area about which, sadly, I, along with many others, know little.

Mr. Boateng: This has been an important and significant debate, not least because, as we speak, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill is being considered in the other place. The internet has led to an international dimension in these matters; it has the potential for evil—that is not too strong a word—as well as for great good. Getting the balance right is essential when it comes to civil liberty and privacy on the one hand, and the significant public interest in bearing down on child pornography and the criminal abuse of children on the other. We are talking about child abuse of the most appalling kind. Right hon. and hon. Members on both

sides of the House such as the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford), who is in the Chamber, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and others who take an interest in children's welfare are appalled at the potential for harm to which children are exposed.
The Government have put the protection of children not only at the heart of criminal justice policy but, significantly, at the heart of health and social policy, and in the overlap between the two. Tragically, the abuse of children in children's homes and other institutions, and in circumstances in which child protection measures have failed to deliver to children safe places in which to grow are all too obvious. We must be ever-vigilant in ensuring that the various agencies of health, social services, police, prosecution and prison and probation services all work in a way that is designed better to protect children. The debate tonight has been an important one, on which we need to build.
From the outset, the Government have, as I have said, sought to put child protection at the heart of criminal law, social and health policy, and put in place a strategy that has a number of building blocks. One of them is in the Bill. There are others, such as the work that the Department of Health is doing to take forward, in health and social services, the recommendations of Sir William Utting. The Department of Health is in the lead, but we are working across Government better to protect children through that work and the legislative and other measures that flow from it.
Another significant area that I will refer to in the course of my response is the review of the law on sex offences. It has at its heart the aim of increasing the protection of children and young people from abuse and exploitation.
7.45 pm
We believe that it is important to take forward this issue in a way that ensures that we address it as a coherent whole. Therefore, I will, I suspect, disappoint right hon. and hon. Members in some areas when I say that to maximise the protection of children and young people from abuse and exploitation, it is necessary to await the outcome of the sex offences review so that we can tackle this holistically rather than on an ad hoc basis. That is not for one moment to put the issue on the back burner or to underestimate the importance and gravity of the subject matter with which we are dealing and the need to address it with vigilance.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Sir Paul Beresford: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Boateng: May I just continue with my argument a little and indicate where we will be proceeding to reassure right hon. and hon. Members as to our determination to take forward this issue?
We will be bringing forward amendments in the House of Lords in relation to new clauses 2 and 4. We will be asking the House not to accede to new clauses 5 and 6, pending the conclusions of the sentencing review. We obviously commend our amendments Nos. 12 to 18 and amendments Nos. 55 to 62 to the House. I will deal in a little detail with why we do not feel able to accept new clauses 3 and 7.
New clauses 2 and 4 deal with maximum sentences. We share the sense of abhorrence towards the crimes to which the new clauses refer. The possession, taking, making, distributing, showing and possessing, with a view to distribution, indecent photographs of children under 16 is a loathsome offence that needs to be met with condign and appropriate punishment. It is a particularly abhorrent form of child abuse. The possession of such material is clearly wrong and is an important factor, as the hon. Member for Mole Valley said, in perpetuating its production by others. They have an incentive to feed the appetite, as long as that appetite continues to exist. We must do all we can to dissuade those who seek such material.
There is no doubt that the misuse of the internet, which is, as I said, capable of reflecting great evil as well as producing great good, has led to an increase in the number of offences committed under the Protection of Children Act 1978. We raised one such case in the House tonight—that of Paul Gadd, also known as Gary Glitter. It was a peculiarly unpleasant case; however, it is, sadly, by no means unfamiliar to those of us who have practised in the criminal courts.
In the light of these concerns and the forthcoming proposals for the protection of children in the sexual offences review, we felt it necessary to commence a piece of work in the Home Office to strengthen measures against this abhorrent activity. I welcome the opportunity that these two new clauses have provided to outline to the House what they are.
The sexual offences review did not look at pornography offences per se, but there is a clear read-across to the offences under the 1978 Act. In the light of our concern to ensure that the law delivers protection for children—the review has the protection of children and young people from abuse and exploitation as its central aim—and our wider concern as to the increased incidence of child pornography offences, the time is right for a review of sentences for such offences.
The Government believe, however, that there should be a clear distinction between the lesser offence of simple possession, with no aggravating features, and the more serious offence of production and supply. That is not to say that offences such as simple possession should be treated lightly; for the reasons I have given, they are extremely serious. That is why the Government intend to bring forward our own amendments in the Lords.
The first amendment will increase the maximum sentence for possession of child pornography from six months imprisonment or a fine, or both, to a term not exceeding five years' imprisonment or a fine, or both. The second will provide for a maximum sentence, under the Protection of Children Act 1978, for taking, distributing, showing and possessing with a view to distribution indecent photographs of children aged under 16, on conviction or indictment, of a term not exceeding 10 years or a fine, or both. The amendment will also propose a sentence, on summary conviction, of imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or a fine, not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both. As we intend to table those amendments, I ask the House—

Sir Paul Beresford: rose—

Mr. Garier: rose—

Mr. Boateng: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) and then to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier).

Sir Paul Beresford: I thank the Minister for his positive reaction. He mentioned two reviews—on sentencing and on sexual offences. Can he tell us when they will be completed and when he anticipates some action? Many of the cynical policemen chasing paedophiles think that much has been said, but nothing has happened. That does not apply only to this Government, but to others going back over 30 years.

Mr. Boateng: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way he put that intervention; that is how one should consider the issue. The sentencing review will take some months to complete. The sexual offences review has completed its considerations. It was led by the Home Office and involved both a reference group and a steering group with a wide cross-section of interests in the matter. The outcome has been passed to Ministers and we hope to publish it in due course. We shall pursue that agenda; we do not intend to delay, although hon. Members will understand why I am not able to announce the date of publication or of any responses at present.

Mr. Garnier: I rise simply to tell the Minister that my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford) asked the question that I would have put.

Mr. Boateng: We shall not kick the review into the long grass. That cannot be so. We need to approach the matter with determination and vigour.
We shall be tabling in the other place the amendments I described, ensuring that they are properly drafted to cover territorial considerations, especially with regard to the internet. There is little point in increasing the sentences in England and Wales, if child pornographers believe that they will receive a less severe sentence for a similar offence in, say, Northern Ireland. We must ensure that the drafting is right. Colleagues in Scotland will want the opportunity to consider the implications of our intentions on their own jurisdiction.
New clause 3, as currently drafted, is flawed. It stipulates a minimum sentence of either five or 10 years for a number of offences for which the existing maximum penalty is less than 10 years—in some cases, less than five years—with an alternative of life imprisonment. The reference to an alternative of life imprisonment is insufficient to overcome the conflict between the new clause and the current maximums for the offences to which it applies. There would thus be two conflicting maximum penalties, which would lead to confusion for practitioners and for the courts.
I well understand what lies behind the new clause, however, and have much sympathy with it. Section 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 already provides for an automatic life sentence for those convicted of a second, serious sexual or violent offence. It is important that sentences take account of that. Under that section, rape, including attempts, under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, and intercourse with a girl aged under 13, under section 5 of the 1956 Act, are qualifying offences.
Pending the outcome of the sexual offences review, which has been considering the law relating to sex offences, it would not be appropriate to change the maximum penalties at this stage. The review may result in recommendations that affect some of those offences. It is thus not the time to accept new clause 3.
Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge the role of mandatory sentencing, which has always been limited to the most serious offences for which life imprisonment is the maximum penalty. Such sentences should clearly be exceptional and reserved for narrowly defined categories of case. Although sexual offences against children are always a matter of grave concern, and courts can and should be expected to sentence in a condign and appropriate way, the new clause would potentially cover a wide range of behaviour and sets of circumstances—including, for example, consensual acts between a 15-year-old and a 17-year-old. That is obviously not the intention of those who tabled the provision; it would hardly be appropriate to impose that length of imprisonment in such cases.
In our view, the provision is flawed; it could not be enacted without significant consequential amendments to the maximum penalties for a number of the offences to which it applies.
There is a further flaw. The new clause applies to an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 for which the current maximum penalty is three years' imprisonment. New clause 2 also addresses that offence, and proposes a new maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment. The two provisions are inconsistent; they could not both be enacted.
As the sexual offences review has conducted a rigorous examination of those complex issues and bearing in mind the wide-ranging proposals it recommends both on the definition of offences and on appropriate penalties—on which we shall hold consultations—the route suggested in new clause 3 would not be acceptable.

Mr. Simon Hughes: We welcome the sexual offences review and look forward to its publication. Do the Minister's comments mean that—except in the most exceptional sexual offence cases—the Government do not support mandatory sentences? Is that a fair conclusion to draw? New clause 3 proposes mandatory sentences but—as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) pointed out—it allows exceptions in specific circumstances. Does the Minister share the view that that is not really a proposal for mandatory sentences at all?

Mr. Boateng: I have a different view on mandatory sentences from that held by the Liberal Democrat Opposition. That is the way it is; I do not go down the same road as the hon. Gentleman. I do not accept new clause 3 for the reasons that I have given. Although we have come to the same conclusion, I suspect that we reached it by different routes.

Sir Paul Beresford: Before the Minister concludes, will he give way?

Mr. Boateng: I shall go on for some time, I am afraid, but I shall give way.

8 pm

Sir Paul Beresford: Before the Minister goes on, will he reply to a final question? One of the drives behind the new clauses was their proactive aspect. They are designed to protect a child from damage while allowing for the arrest and conviction of the offender. Is that the sort of approach that the Minister is willing to take in further amendments and legislation?

Mr. Boateng: I wholeheartedly endorse the proactive approach; it is the best way of proceeding. We must ensure that action is taken against violent and sexual predators. That is why we will shall come forward with proposals, and we shall announce our conclusions in due course. The Select Committee on Home Affairs has already endorsed cur proposals for offenders and others with severe personality disorders that make such people a danger. Violent, predatory paedophiles will be among that group, and it is right that we are proactive in responding to the problems that they present. I have no doubt about that.
The underlying philosophy of the amendments is shared by the whole House. We have to ensure that we work in a way that is holistic and that our strategy recognises the complexity of the process. An action in one place, unless it is thought through and is part of a holistic strategy, can have the reverse effect from that which we intended.
I sense that the House wishes to arrive at a rapid conclusion on this matter, but it is a serious issue and I do not want anyone to be in any doubt about the extent to which we take it seriously. Although we cannot accept new clauses 5 and 6 for the reasons that I have given, it is important to ensure—I now come to new clause 7—that we do all that we can to curb the misuse of the internet by child pornographers and paedophiles. We have a great deal of sympathy for the intent behind new clause 7, but it contains gaps in the way in which it responds to the complexity of the issues involved. That is why we intend to proceed with the work that we are doing with, among others, the internal relay chat sub-group, which has been set up to examine the issue in detail, to identify the problems and to recommend solutions. That sub-group will present its report to the internet crime forum by the end of August and we need to wait for its conclusions and its recommendations before moving to legislation. However, we accept the thrust behind the new clause.
The Government amendments are designed to strengthen the Bill. They are a response to the debate that we had in Committee and to the consultations that we have had with a wide range of organisations concerned with child protection. They carry forward the intentions of the Bill as expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. For that reason, I commend the amendments to the House.
We intend to table amendments in the House of Lords as a result of new clauses 2 and 4 and to put new clauses 5 and 6 to one side pending the conclusions of the sentencing review. I hope that that course will commend itself to the House and that it will accept Government amendments Nos. 12 to 18 and 55 to 62.

Mr. Lidington: Before I respond to the Minister's remarks, may I deal briefly with the question put to me by the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) about the new clause on mandatory sentences? We have reproduced the previsions in the Crime (Sentences) Act


1997, as consolidated by recent legislation, that give the judge, when considering all the circumstances of a particular case, the discretion to override the normal rule for a mandatory minimum sentence if he considers that there is an overwhelming case for him to do so. One could argue whether such provisions should have been in the 1997 Act and I recall that there was much controversy about them at the time. The wording in the new clause simply reproduces what is in current legislation.

Jackie Ballard: The hon. Gentleman clearly, accepts the provision in the 1997 Act that judges can take specific circumstances into account, so, he does not support mandatory sentences without reservation.

Mr. Lidington: Our new clause reproduces the wording of the 1997 Act as it applies to burglars and class A drug offenders and applies it to the category of child sex offenders to which the new clause relates. Whatever the arguments about the principle of the extent to which judges should be allowed to exercise a degree of discretion, it makes sense for different categories of offenders to be subject to the same type of law on mandatory and minimum sentences.
The Minister replied in a generous spirit to the debate and I thank him for that. I welcome the fact that the Government propose to table amendments in another place that would pretty well mirror our proposals in new clauses 2 and 4. I hope that, in due course, the Home Office wall bring forward other amendments to the law to give effect to the ideas that were embodied in the other new clauses.
Given the number of flaws that we find in the legislation introduced by expert and professional Government draftsman, I concede that the inexpert and unprofessional draftsmen of any Opposition may make errors of their own. I accept the Minister's comments in both spirit and substance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 8

SEX OFFENDERS ACT 1997: NOTIFICATION PERIOD

'(1) In section 2(1), section 2(2) and section 2(7) of the Sex Offenders Act 1997, for the words '14 days' there shall be substituted the words '48 hours'.'—[Mr. Lidington.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Lidington: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require sex offenders to notify the police of a change of address within 48 hours of their changing address rather than within the 14 days that the law currently permits. It would target the paedophiles whom the police have encountered and who travel around the country. For example, they travel along canal routes, never staying in one location for 14 days. That has meant that they have found ways in which to escape registration even though their history of paedophile offending means that they should be registered. In effect, they become invisible to the law.
By reducing the registration time to 48 hours, the police and other agencies will be able to keep an eye on paedophiles more easily and hinder their ability to escape

the law. Given that paedophiles are more likely than other offenders to become repeat criminals, it is absolutely vital that we keep track of those who have been caught and convicted before.

Mr. Boateng: We have much sympathy with the thinking behind new clause 8, which is clearly intended to strengthen the protection of the public. Research into the operational effectiveness of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 will be published this summer. I have several concerns, as I suspect other hon. Members have, about how the Act has worked in practice, and the new clause relates to one of them. We will launch a policy review of the Act which will consider those findings and other relevant issues. It will take into account the views of a wide range of organisations, including children's charities and the police, and we believe that it would be premature to amend the Act in advance of that consultation. It also does not make much sense in our view to consider that one aspect of the Act in isolation, when we have indicated our intention of conducting a more thoroughgoing review.

Sir Paul Beresford: An additional point is that a period of 14 days allows the predatory paedophile the opportunity to "groom" his clients—as he would put it—and 48 hours would make that exceedingly difficult.

Mr. Boateng: There is much strength in the argument that 14 days is too long. However, my point is that other concerns arise from the Sex Offenders Act 1997 in relation, for instance, to aspects of foreign travel and people who have committed offences overseas. They need to be considered in the round and I have no doubt that in due course, a basket of proposals will be made as a result of the research and consultation that will lead to later amendment of the Act. This issue may be one of them, and I request that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) does not press the new clause, pending the outcome of the research into the workings of the Act.
It is worth celebrating the fact that we have the Act in place and that we achieve a good rate of compliance, in the sense that 97 per cent.—at the last count—of sex offenders comply with the registration requirement. That has helped to change the climate and the culture in terms of the police and the other child protection agencies working together to identify and keep tabs on that group of people who, as the supporters of the new clause recognise, are predatory and guileful, and require careful monitoring. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the new clause.

Mr. Lidington: I am grateful for the Minister's sympathetic response. However, the situation is that there is an acknowledged loophole in the law. The Government have said that they are embarking on a review of the Sex Offenders Act 1997, but in this matter we should err on the side of caution and protecting young people. Let us change the law tonight, plug the loophole and let the Government conduct their review on that basis, with good will from all sides. I intend to press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 261.

Division No. 225]
[8.13pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Amess, David
Hunter, Andrew


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Jenkin, Bernard


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Key, Robert


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Baldry, Tony
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Ballard, Jackie
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Lansley, Andrew


Bercow, John
Letwin, Oliver


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lidington, David


Blunt, Crispin
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Boswell, Tim
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Loughton, Tim


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Brady, Graham
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Brake, Tom
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Brand, Dr Peter
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Breed, Colin
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Browning, Mrs Angela
Malins, Humfrey


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Maples, John


Burns, Simon
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Cable, Dr Vincent
May, Mrs Theresa


Cash, William
Moore, Michael


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Moss, Malcolm



Nicholls, Patrick


Chidgey, David
Norman, Archie


Clappison, James
Ottaway, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Page, Richard


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Paice, James



Paterson, Owen


Collins, Tim
Pickles, Eric


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Prior, David


Cotter, Brian
Randall, John


Cran, James
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Curry, Rt Hon David
Rendel, David


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Robathan, Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Robertson, Laurence


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Day, Stephen
Ruffley, David


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Duncan Smith, Iain
St Aubyn, Nick


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Sayeed, Jonathan


Evans, Nigel
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Faber, David
Shepherd, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)


Flight, Howard
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Soames, Nicholas


Foster, Don (Bath)
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Spicer, Sir Michael


Fox, Dr Liam
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gale, Roger
Steen, Anthony


Garnier, Edward
Streeter, Gary


Gibb, Nick
Stunell, Andrew


Gidley, Sandra
Swayne, Desmond


Gill, Christopher
Syms, Robert


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gray, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Green, Damian
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Greenway, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Grieve, Dominic
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Hammond, Philip
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Hawkins, Nick
Tredinnick, David


Hayes, John
Trend, Michael


Heald, Oliver
Tyrie, Andrew


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Walter, Robert


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Waterson, Nigel


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Webb, Steve


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Wells, Bowen


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Welsh, Andrew





Whitney, Sir Raymond
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Whittingdale, John



Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd



Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
Mr. Peter Luff and


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Donohoe, Brian H


Ainger, Nick
Doran, Frank


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dowd, Jim


Ashton, Joe
Drew, David


Atherton, Ms Candy
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Atkins, Charlotte
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Austin, John
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bayley, Hugh
Efford, Clive


Beard, Nigel
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Ennis, Jeff


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Etherington, Bill


Bennett, Andrew F
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Benton, Joe
Fisher, Mark


Best, Harold
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Blizzard, Bob
Flint, Caroline


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Flynn, Paul


Borrow David
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Galloway, George


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Gardiner, Barry


Bradshaw, Ben
Gerrard, Neil


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Gibson, Dr Ian


Browne, Desmond
Godman Dr Norman A


Burden, Richard
Godsiff, Roger


Butler, Mrs Christine
Goggins, Paul


Cabom, Rt Hon Richard
Gorton, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Caton, Martin
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cawsey, Ian
Grocott, Bruce


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Grogan, John


Chaytor, David
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clapham, Michael
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hanson, David


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edingburgh Pentlands)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia



Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hinchliffe, David


Clelland, David
Hoey, Kate


Clwyd, Ann
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Coaker, Vernon
Hope, Phil


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hopkins, Kelvin


Coleman, Iain
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Colman, Tony
Howells, Dr Kim


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cooper, Yvette
Humble Mrs Joan


Corbett, Robin
Hurst, Alan



Hutton, John


Corston, Jean
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cousins, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jamieson, David


Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jenkins, Brian


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair



Darvill, Keith
Jones Helen (Warrington N)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)



Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Keeble, Ms Sally


Denham, John
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dobbin, Jim
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)






Kemp, Fraser
Raynstord, Nick


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Khabra, Piara S
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kidney, David
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rooney, Terry


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Ross, Emie (Dundee W)


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Rowlands, Ted


Lepper, David
Ruddock, Joan


Leslie, Christopher
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Levitt, Tom
Ryan, Ms Joan


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Salter, Martin


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Savidge, Malcolm


Love, Andrew
Sedgemore, Brian


McAllion, John
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McAvoy, Thomas
Singh, Marsha


McCabe, Steve
Skinner, Dennis


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McDonnell, John
Squire, Ms Rachel


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McIsaac, Shona
Steinberg, Gerry


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Stevenson, George


Mackinlay, Andrew
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


McNulty, Tony
Stoate, Dr Howard


MacShane, Denis
Stuart, Ms Gisela


McWilliam, John
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mallaber, Judy



Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Temple—Morris, Peter


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Martlew, Eric
Timms, Stephen


Meale, Alan
Tipping, Paddy


Merron, Gillian
Todd, Mark


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Touhig, Don


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Trickett, Jon


Miller, Andrew
Truswell, Paul


Mitchell, Austin
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Morley, Elliot
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Mountford, Kali
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Mudie, George
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Mullin, Chris
Walley, Ms Joan


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Ward, Ms Claire


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Wareing, Robert N


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Watts, David


Norris, Dan
White, Brian


Olner, Bill
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Organ, Mrs Diana
Wicks, Malcolm


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Pearson, Ian



Pickthall, Colin
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Pike, Peter L
Wills, Michael


Plaskitt, James
Wilson, Brian


Pollard, Kerry
Winnick, David


Pond, Chris
Wood, Mike


Pope, Greg
Woodward Shaun


Pound, Stephen
Worthington, Tony


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Wray, James


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Primarolo, Dawn
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Prosser, Gwyn
Wyatt, Derek


Purchase, Ken



Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Tellers for the Noes:


Quinn, Lawrie
Mr. Graham Allen and


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Mr. Robert Ainsworth

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 12

EXCLUSION OF ASSAULT ON POLICE FROM POWER TO RELEASE SHORT-TERM PRISONERS ON LICENCE

'In section 34A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (power to release short-term prisoners on licence), after subsection (2)(b) there is inserted—

"(bb) the sentence is for any of the following offences—

(i) an offence under section 89 of the Police Act 1996 (assaulting, obstructing or resisting a constable);
(ii) an offence under section 38 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (assault with intent to resist arrest);
(iii) an offence under section 18, section 20, or section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (wounding, causing grievous bodily harm and causing actual bodily harm) committed against a constable in the execution of his duty.".'.—[Mr. Lidington.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 280.

Division No. 226]
[8.25 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Amess, David
Gray, James


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Green, Damian


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Greenway, John


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Grieve, Dominic


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Baldry, Tony
Hammond, Philip


Bercow, John
Hawkins, Nick


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hayes, John


Blunt, Crispin
Heald, Oliver


Boswell, Tim
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Brady, Graham
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hunter, Andrew


Browning, Mrs Angela
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Burns, Simon
Jenkin, Bernard


Cash, William
Key, Robert


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie



Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Clappison, James
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Lansley, Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Letwin, Oliver



Lidington, David


Collins, Tim
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Cran, James
Loughton, Tim


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Day, Stephen
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Duncan Smith, Iain
McLoughlin, Patrick


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Malins, Humfrey


Evans, Nigel
Maples, John


Faber, David
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Fallon, Michael
May, Mrs Theresa


Flight, Howard
Moss, Malcolm


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Nicholls, Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Norman, Archie


Fox, Dr Liam
Ottaway, Richard


Gale, Roger
Page, Richard


Garnier, Edward
Paice, James


Gibb, Nick
Paterson, Owen


Gill, Christopher
Pickles, Eric






Prior, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Randall, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Robathan, Andrew
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Robertson, Laurence
Tredinnick, David


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Trend, Michael


Ruffley, David
Tyrie, Andrew


St Aubyn, Nick
Walter, Robert


Sayeed, Jonathan
Waterson, Nigel


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Wells, Bowen


Shepherd, Richard
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)
Whittingdale, John


Soames, Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Spicer, Sir Michael
Yeo, Tim


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Steen, Anthony



Streeter, Gary
Tellers for the Ayes:


Swayne, Desmond
Mr. Peter Luff and


Syms, Robert
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cooper, Yvette


Ainger, Nick
Corbett, Robin


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Corston, Jean


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cotter, Brian


Ashton, Joe
Cousins, Jim


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Atkins, Charlotte
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Austin, John
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Ballard, Jackie
Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire


Bayley, Hugh
Dalyell, Tam


Beard, Nigel
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Darvill, Keith


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Benton, Joe
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Best, Harold
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Blizzard, Bob
Dawson, Hilton


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Dean, Mrs Janet


Borrow, David
Denham, John


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dobbin, Jim


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Donohoe, Brian H


Bradshaw, Ben
Doran, Frank


Brake, Tom
Dowd, Jim


Brand, Dr Peter
Drew, David


Breed, Colin
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Browne, Desmond
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Burden, Richard
Efford, Clive


Butler, Mrs Christine
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Cable, Dr Vincent
Ennis, Jeff


Cabom, Rt Hon Richard
Etherington, Bill


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Caplin, Ivor
Fisher, Mark


Caton, Martin
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Cawsey, Ian
Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Flint, Caroline


Chaytor, David
Flynn, Paul


Chidgey, David
Foster, Don (Bath)


Clapham, Michael
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Galloway, George



Gardiner, Barry


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gerrard, Neil


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Gidley, Sandra


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clelland, David
Godsiff, Roger


Clwyd, Ann
Goggins, Paul


Coaker, Vemon
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Coffey, Ms Ann
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Coleman, Iain
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Colman, Tony
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Connarty, Michael
Grocott, Bruce


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Grogan, John





Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Miller, Andrew


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mitchell, Austin


Hanson, David
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Moore, Michael


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Morley, Elliot


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mountford, Kali


Heppell, John
Mudie, George


Hill, Keith
Mullin, Chris


Hinchliffe, David
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hoey, Kate
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hope, Phil
Norris, Dan


Hopkins, Kelvin
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Olner, Bill


Howells, Dr Kim
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Osbome, Ms Sandra


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pearson, Ian


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Pickthall, Colin


Humble, Mrs Joan



Hurst, Alan
Pike Peter L


Hutton, John
Plaskitt, James


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pond, Chris


Illsley, Eric
Pope, Greg


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pound, Stephen


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jamieson, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jenkins, Brian
Primarolo, Dawn


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Prosser, Gwyn



Purchase, Ken


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Quinn, Lawrie



Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Rendel, David


Keeble, Ms Sally
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Ross, Emie (Dundee W)


Kemp, Fraser
Ruddock, Joan


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Khabra, Piara S
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Kidney, David
Ryan, Ms Joan


Kumar, Dr Ashok
salter, Martin


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Savidge, Malcolm


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Sedgemore, Brian


Lepper, David
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Leslie, Christopher
Singh, Marsha


Levitt, Tom
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Smith Angela (Basildon)


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Love Andrew



McAllion, John
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


McCabe, Steve
Squire, Ms Rachel


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis



Steinberg, Gerry


McDonagh, Siobhain
Stevenson, George


McDonnell, John
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Stoate, Dr Howard


McIsaac, Shona
Stringer, Graham


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mackinlay, Andrew
Stunell, Andrew


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McNulty, Tony
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McWilliam, John



Mahon, Mrs Alice
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Mallaber, Judy
Temple—Morris, Peter


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Marshall—Andrews, Robort
Timms, Stephen


Martlew, Eric
Tipping, Paddy


Meale, Alan
Todd, Mark


Merron, Gillian
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Touhig, Don


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Trickett Jon






Truswell, Paul
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Turner, Dennis (Wolverth'ton SE)



Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Wills, Michael


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Wilson, Brian


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Winnick, David


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wood, Mike


Walley, Ms John
Woodward, Shaun


Walley, Ms Joan
Worthington, Tony


Warn, Ms Claire
Wray, James


Wareing, Robert N
Wright Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Watts, David
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Webb, Steve
Wyatt, Derek


White, Brain



Whitehead, Dr Alan
Tellers for the Noes:


Wicks, Malcolm
Mr. Graham Allen and


Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2

AIMS OF THE SERVICE

Mr. Boateng: rose—

Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 122, in page 2, line 10, at end insert—
'(d) the education of offenders, in particular about the impact of crime on the victims of crime and the public.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 123, in clause 9, page 5, line 3, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
Amendment No. 127, in page 21, line 6, leave out Clause 38.
Amendment No. 128, in page 21, line 27, leave out Clause 39.
Amendment No. 129, in page 22, line 8, leave out Clause 40.
Government amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 23.
Amendment No. 138, in clause 44, page 27 line 41, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
Amendment No. 139, in page 28, line 15, leave out "punishment" and insert "service".
Amendment No. 140, in clause 45, page 28, line 28, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
Government amendment No. 27.
Amendment No. 141, in clause 5, page 29, line 10, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
Amendment No. 142, in page 29, line 16, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
Amendment No. 143, in clause 45, page 29, line 19, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
Government amendment No. 28.
Amendment No. 144, in page 29, line 25, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
Amendment No. 149, in clause 46, page 30, line 2, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
Government amendment No. 29.
Amendment No. 150, in page 30, line 26, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
Amendment No. 151, in page 30, line 32, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
Government amendment No. 30.
Amendment No. 152, in page 30, line 35, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
Amendment No. 153, in clause 47, page 31, line 12, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
Amendment No. 154, in page 31, line 16, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
Amendment No. 155, in page 31, line 38, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
Amendment No. 156, in page 32, line 7, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
Amendment No. 189, in clause 48, page 32, line 26, at end insert—
'and that failure constitutes a serious breach and a period of at least three months has elapsed since the commencement of the order'.
Amendment No. 157, in clause 50, page 34, line 22, leave out—
'community rehabilitation orders or community punishment and rehabilitation orders'
and insert—
'probation orders or combination orders'.
Amendment No. 158, in page 34, line 25, leave out from the first "community" to ", to" in line 26 and insert—
'service orders, or combination orders'.
Amendment No. 159, in page 34, line 31, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
Amendment No. 160, in page 34, line 33, leave out "punishment" and insert "service".
Amendment No. 169, in schedule 6, page 53, leave out from beginning of line 20 to end of line 47 on page 54.
Amendment No. 170, in page 56, line 22, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
Amendment No. 171, in page 57, line 19, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
Amendment No. 172, in page 57, line 23, leave out paragraph 18.
Amendment No. 173, in page 60, leave out lines 8 and 9.
Amendment No. 174, in page 60, line 11, leave out—
'community rehabilitation hostel' means a community rehabilitation'
and insert—
'probation hostel' means a probation'.
Government amendment No. 102.
Amendment No. 175, in page 64, line 9, line 9, leave out paragraph 58.
Amendment No. 176, in page 65, line 23, leave out from "for" to end of line 25 and insert—
'before "probation, community service, combination", there is inserted "exclusion".'.


Amendment No. 177, in page 66, line 2, leave out sub-paragraph (a).
Government amendment No. 114.
Amendment No. 178, in page 66, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 13.
Amendment No. 179, in page 66, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 30.
Amendment No. 180, in page 66, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 41.
Amendment No. 181, in page 67, line 1, leave out from "for" to end of line 4 and insert—
'before "probation" there is inserted "exclusion, drug abstinence"'.
Amendment No. 182, in page 67, line 9, leave out from beginning to end of line 12.
Amendment No. 183, in page 67, line 13, leave out from "for" to end of line 15 and insert—
'before "probation" there is inserted "exclusion, drug abstinence"'.
Amendment No. 184, in page 67, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 32.
Amendment No. 185, in page 67, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 36.
Amendment No. 186, in page 67, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 68.
Government amendment No. 115.
Amendment No. 187, in page 68, line 12, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".
Government amendment No. 116.
Amendment No. 188, in page 68, line 41, leave out from second "of' to ", curfew" in line 42 and insert "probation, combination".
Amendment No. 120, in page 68, leave out lines 43 to 48.

Mr. Hawkins: It seems that the Minister wanted to move our amendments for us. That indicates a new spirit of support for our measures. I look forward with particular pleasure to his words a little later.
We are dealing with a large group of amendments, but the House will appreciate that many of them are consequential on others.
The House will recall that there was great delight when, in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who is in his place, the Minister conceded that we had been right and the Government had been wrong in their attempt to change the name of the probation service. That was a welcome concession, but we hoped that the Government would make further concessions in Committee. We were sadly disappointed. Even though they had conceded what the National Association of Probation Officers, every county probation service in the country and large numbers of other people had said about the name of the service, they remained adamant and refused to accept the equally strongly held views expressed by the same groups of people—not only the probation officers trade union, but all the country probation committees—that it was crazy to change the names of all the orders that the courts were used to dealing with.
I draw to the attention of the House the continuing concerns, even after the Committee stage, that have been expressed by the Hereford and Worcester probation committee in particular. A member of that committee wrote to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), who served on the Standing Committee with us, and stated:
We welcome the Minister's decision not to change the Service's name, but Part III of the Bill introduces a completely new nomenclature for community sentences … which the Committee—
that is, the Hereford and Worcester probation committee—
considers both unnecessary and unhelpful. The new names (in particular community punishment order for community service order, and community rehabilitation order for probation order) offer an over-simplified account of their functions, and are likely to increase confusion about community sentences, and undermine rather than enhance public understanding of the work of the service.
We pointed out that what the Government were doing with the orders ran the risk that the courts and the orders that were imposed by sentencers would become the target of ridicule. In Committee, there was a great deal of anxiety, even from Government Back Benchers, about potential dangers. We had several constructive debates about that. I am disappointed that Ministers have remained adamant and unpersuaded, despite the fact that the logic of their concession on the name of the service should have led them to agree with us and all the experts on the names of the orders.
One need not spell out the acronym of "community rehabilitation and punishment order" to appreciate immediately that it could easily become a matter of ridicule. The law must not be mocked. We are therefore very worried. The letter from the member of the Hereford and Worcester probation committee is especially significant because the author is not, as Ministers may suppose, a member of the Conservative party, or even a Liberal Democrat, but a sitting Labour councillor. Even local Labour party activists who are on probation committees believe that the Government have got it wrong; they have expressed the matter in strong terms, which I described.

Mr. John Bercow: Far be it from me to engage in protracted semantic dispute, but does my hon. Friend accept that the community rehabilitation and punishment order potentially admits of several different acronyms and pronunciations? My hon. Friend appeared to refer to an acronym that was not unconnected with rubbish; is not it possible that CREEPO would be an appropriate interpretation of the Government's proposed title? Would not that be undesirable?

Mr. Hawkins: It would certainly be undesirable. My hon. Friend, as always, uses his verbal and intellectual dexterity to undermine the Government's words.
We must also take seriously the impact of offences on the victims of crime. It is especially appropriate that amendment No. 122 is the first amendment in the group because we want to include new paragraph (d) in clause 2(2). It states that regard should be taken of
the education of offenders, in particular about the impact of crime on the victims of crime and the public.
After all the discussions in Committee and speeches from hon. Members of all parties, we are convinced that victims of crime or their relatives would want to know that offenders would have to be educated about the impact of their crimes on the victims.
Many hon. Members have worked with organisations such as Victim Support; no party has a monopoly of virtue on that. However, I have been hugely impressed by Victim Support's work. There has been an increasing trend towards making offenders more aware of the impact of their crimes on the victims. The amendment would provide for a specific method of ensuring that that happened. It would be a useful provision. Even if Ministers cannot accept amendment No. 122 tonight, I hope that they will continue to consider the matter seriously as the Bill progresses.
When writing to me and other members of the Committee, Ministers have repeatedly said that their minds are not closed. We hope that they will reconsider clause 2(2). We would be delighted if the Government tabled an identical or similar amendment to amendment No. 122 later, perhaps in another place. I am sure that both Ministers agree that it is essential to take account of victims' interests.
I regret that some amendments were not selected for debate. However, I shall not stray into considering them; we will discuss other aspects of entitling organisations on Third Reading. I emphasise that we feel very strongly that no provision of the Bill should expose the law to ridicule or contempt. The Government's proposals run that serious risk.
As I said earlier, many of the amendments are consequential on the names that the Government have suggested for the proposed new orders. It is therefore unnecessary to consider every amendment. However, I emphasise that we believe that the Government's proposed name changes achieve no good purpose and are counterproductive. It is more important for people to get used to the existing names of probation and community service orders. The Government's attempts to change those names amount to fiddling while Rome burns.

Jackie Ballard: The Minister and I were confused about who would move which amendment next. I rise to move amendment No. 189—I hope that that is in order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady does not have to move the amendment, because it has been grouped. She simply has to speak about it.

Mr. Tom Levitt: She will learn.

Jackie Ballard: The hon. Gentleman says that I will learn. In Committee, when I believed that an amendment I had tabled had been moved in a group with the Minister's amendment, I was wrong. I am now taking a belt-and-braces approach and moving amendment No. 189, just in case. I shall indeed learn, albeit slowly.
Amendment No. 189 deals with breaches of community orders and the consequences. Breaching a community order should be taken seriously, and penalties should be applied for such breaches. Proper supervision of community orders is important, not only to aid public confidence in non-custodial sentences, but to improve public safety.
The most recent study of breaches of proceedings by the Inner London probation service showed that, over two years, 28 per cent. of the case load was breached. Of those

cases of breaches, 21 per cent. of offenders received a custodial sentence. Clearly, the court did not feel that a custodial sentence was necessary in the majority of cases.
Introducing an automatic three-month prison sentence, and reducing from three to two the number of acceptable breaches, without differentiating between a serious breach, such as assaulting a probation officer, and a less serious breach such as turning up 10 minutes late for an appointment, will inevitably increase the prison population and introduce an element of rough justice into the system.
In Committee, the Minister accepted that it would be more difficult for some people who lead a chaotic life style, whether due to drug or alcohol misuse, or problems with employment or housing difficulties, to comply with a community order. Part of an order's purpose is for the supervising officer to help that person achieve a more regular life style. Again, in Committee, the Minister of State accepted that. The clause will undermine probation officers' work with offenders, which is aimed at order compliance. In Committee, the Minister resisted our amendments, which would have effectively neutered the clause. Consequently, amendment No. 189 is meant to be helpful, as it would accept automatic sentencing for breaches, but it proposes that that should not occur within the first three months of a sentence. That would give probation officers time to work with offenders to help them adjust their life style in a reasonable period. The duration of that period would be known to the offender and the probation officer, so would concentrate their efforts to end the offender's chaotic life style and ensure that he complied with the order.
Three months is a reasonable period for any offender to get his or her act together with such help. If, during that period, a serious breach of the order took place, it would still be available to the courts to use their existing discretion to impose custodial sentences, as they have done in the past with breaches. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment as a genuinely constructive way of trying to take forward the debate that we had in Committee.
I shall outline Liberal Democrat views on at least two of the Conservative amendments. On amendment No. 122, there was some debate in Committee about whether the aim of the probation service should include the education of offenders and whether they should be educated about the impact of their crime on the victim. As we discussed, many offenders, especially shoplifters, seem to think of their offence as a victimless crime. Similarly, many who are convicted of corporate fraud probably think of that as a victimless crime. It is important that offenders are educated to realise that most crimes have victims and that they should be aware of the impact of their crime on the victim.
I agree that the probation service should have a wider educative role. For example, many offenders have basic skills needs. Those serving community sentences should have at least as much access to basic skills help as those serving custodial sentences. I am therefore pleased that Conservative Members have broadened the scope of the amendment compared with the one that they tabled in Committee so that it encompasses offenders' other educational needs. I hope that that means that the amendment will now attract the Minister's support, as he


was reluctant to accept the amendment tabled in Committee because it focused too narrowly on educating the offender on the impact of his crime.
I do not agree with most of the Conservative amendments relating to changing the names of orders, even though I too have read the briefings of the National Association of Probation Officers. However, we agree with amendment No. 128, as the term "community service orders" is well understood by the public and offenders. It means what it says and refers to reparation to the community by means of taking part in supervised, structured and purposeful community service activity. Community service orders also help to improve the self-esteem of some offenders who may never have done anything purposeful or useful for the community in their lives and might be able to stop offending if they see themselves as contributing something to the community, albeit as a result of a sentence imposed by the court.
We do not support amendment No. 123, so we do not agree with its consequential amendments, which make up the bulk of amendments in this group. However, we support amendment No. 128 and its consequential amendments.

Mr. Boateng: We have had an interesting, if rather bitty, debate on important issues. I shall try to draw those issues together and even hope to elicit a contribution from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who provided a useful platform for us to make clear our intentions on the naming of the National Probation Service for England and Wales. The hon. Gentleman has been strangely silent this evening. One would have hoped for a contribution, but he has confined himself to a giggle here, a prod there—this is Bercow at the fifth remove.

Mr. Bercow: Is the Minister aware that this is the first occasion, and will probably be the last in this Parliament, on which I have been attacked for speaking too little?

Mr. Boateng: I count myself among the hon. Gentleman's admirers. He adds enormously to the House in some ways, although not in others. He certainly approaches the issues with genuine care and, in matters that involve the Home Office, with a degree of erudition that is always welcome. I always listen carefully to what he says and was therefore disappointed that he did not make a speech this evening.
Names are important, but the Opposition have got the wrong end of the stick. I understand the reason for their amendments, and I know that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) is much influenced by the National Association of Probation Officers. We can always rely on him to pray its name in aid of almost any proposition that he cares to adopt. However, he is unwise to do so in this case, because I know from discussions with probation officers that while they have a clear view about the name of their service—I understand that view and I have accepted their arguments—they are concerned about public ignorance about the content of the various orders that they invite the court to make.
What, for example, does the term "combination order" tell us about the content of such an order? We know that it combines elements of probation supervision and the

requirement to do unpaid work, and that it is designed both to punish and to rehabilitate the offender, but the name completely obscures those facts. The name "community punishment and rehabilitation order" tells us exactly what the content of the order is and describes what we are asking probation officers to do.

Mr. Hawkins: The Minister suggests that I am unwise to pray in aid the National Association of Probation Officers, but its view could not be clearer; I have its briefing here, and it says:
NAPO is opposed to the renaming of existing community orders. The phrase "probation order" has international resonance and recognition. Community service has a higher profile than the Home Office appears to believe.
The Minister is wrong; NAPO is 100 per cent. with the Opposition and 100 per cent. against the Government.

Mr. Boateng: I shall not lose any sleep over that, because I do not believe that in this instance NAPO accurately reflects the concerns of its members. Before the hon. Gentleman prays it in aid, he ought to ensure that the cause in question is supported by its members. They tell me that they are concerned that the public should get a better grasp of what they do. The term "combination order" does not give them that grasp, and "community service" fails to tell them what work we ask offenders to do, and why we ask them to do it.
Many people volunteer to do community service because they want to help their neighbours or take part in a local community group, such as Homestart, a citizens advice bureau and so on. They serve the community voluntarily, but we require offenders to pay something back to the community that they have wronged. There is nothing voluntary about that; it is a punishment delivered in the community.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Boateng: I give way to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Graham Brady: The Minister casts doubt on NAPO's ability to represent the views of its members on this matter on the basis that probation officers have been telling him something different. Will he clarify what measures he has taken to consult probation officers; how many have spoken to him on this matter; and what evidence he has to suggest that those views are more representative than those expressed by NAPO?

9 pm

Mr. Boateng: In my humble way, I can only share with the House what probation officers tell me when I visit probation services throughout the country. They tell me that they want people to have a better sense of what they do. That is what we want to achieve under our proposals.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Boateng: I am delighted to have aroused such interest.

Dr. George Turner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that most people share his view


that community service is what the town mayor and borough councillors do, and that the victims of crime especially, for whom the Conservative party often claims to speak, will welcome the refreshingly frank statement that we are talking about community punishment?

Mr. Boateng: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I could not agree more.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Boateng: I suspect that I shall not agree with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who has not yet spoken in the debate.

Mr. John Hayes: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman anticipates a lack of agreement between us, given that we usually agree—at least socially, if not in the Chamber. Is he telling the House that the new terminology is clearer and more precise? Community service orders are widely understood and the concept of probation is rooted in the public consciousness. Is he really telling us that they are not widely understood by the public?

Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman, of whom I am fond, is over-egging the pudding when he says that the concept of probation is rooted in the public consciousness. That is going a little too far. We cannot afford to be complacent; we must devise orders that tell their own story. The terms "community rehabilitation" and "community punishment" tell a story.

Mr. Hawkins: The Minister has made a serious allegation. He has suggested that the trade union which represents probation officers has sent briefings to hon. Members that do not represent their members' views. The leader of that union, Mr. Harry Fletcher, will be very concerned to hear that Her Majesty's Government prefer to believe the Minister's anecdotes. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is accurate in saying that perhaps two or three probation officers, who may or may not be members of NAPO, have made such points to him. However, we are talking about a briefing that has been sent to hon. Members on behalf of the probation officers' trade union. If he does not accept those views, will he accept those of probation committee members from his own party?

Mr. Boateng: The party affiliation of probation committee members is neither here nor there. I regret the politicisation of this criminal justice issue by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, who is the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson. He should think carefully before suggesting that any party political element is involved. We are concerned with the proper administration of justice. I have no doubt that NAPO performs its proper function in representing its views, but there is more than one view. Others hold views that are inconsistent with the position that the right hon. Gentleman has adopted—in other words, that punishment and rehabilitation are proper adjectives to describe the orders that we ask the House to approve tonight.

Mr. Dawson: In welcoming the conversion of Opposition Members to the concept of trade union rights and their enjoying social occasions with radical reforming

Labour Front Benchers, does my right hon. Friend agree that they have entirely missed the point? The very title of the new national probation service reflects the fact that we are taking the best of the past and renaming some of the most important elements of its work; and shows that we are intent on a new future and putting the bad old days well behind us.

Mr. Boateng: I could not have put it better myself and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the obvious truth that our proposals take forward the reforming, modernising agenda that we have developed around the national probation service.

Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boateng: I should get on, but I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way because he performed a moment ago, as those attending to the debate will have observed, a rather inelegant wriggle in back-tracking from his truly vicious attack on the integrity and representative character of NAPO. It is a matter of concern to me and to other Conservative Members that he should behave in such an unacademic fashion. He did not provide empirical evidence. Ordinarily I greatly admire him, but does he think that such a contribution is worthy of a product of Apsley grammar school, Bristol university and the College of Law?

Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman's tongue is so firmly in his cheek as to give him a positively hamsterish appearance. There is no way that anything I have said or done could possibly bear the interpretation that he puts on it. We really must get on with debating the amendment in hand. For the reasons that I have outlined—a desire that sentences should be understood—we have adopted these names. I hope that, on reflection, Opposition Members will come to accept them and in time, as I believe they will, welcome them and recognise the good sense that underpins them.
The Opposition have raised the aims of the service in Committee and on Report and I want to deal with whether the amendment would achieve the end on which we all agree. We all share a belief, on which Labour Members have acted, that we ought to bring victims centre stage in the criminal justice system. That is why the Government enacted the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and why we are taking the Bill forward. All contribute in their way to ensuring that victims take centre stage and that we establish a greater emphasis on restitution as part of the process of our law. We will take no lessons from the Opposition on victims and support for victims, not least because we increased substantially the grant aid to Victim Support and enabled it to extend its work to cover magistrates and Crown courts. The Opposition signally failed to do that when they had stewardship of the criminal justice system.
We do not accept the amendment, although we well understand where it is coming from. It simply does not meet the requirements of a statutory implementation of the aims of such a service, as it is too narrow and it would underpin some but not all the functions and activities of


that service. For example, the function and activity of preparing reports to advise the courts could not be carried out in such a way as to meet the wording of the amendment. We support entirely, and have developed a range of, accredited programmes which have been shown to reduce the risk of reoffending. Those programmes are being delivered by the probation service and the Prison Service together, and are central to the successful rehabilitation of offenders. That has been done: that is happening. We do not need an amendment like this—poorly drafted and inelegant—to encourage us to proceed in a direction in which we are already proceeding. It adds nothing; indeed, it is a distraction and a possible source of confusion.
As for amendment No. 189, I recall that in Committee we did not feel able to accept the thrust of the argument of the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard). The amendment would cause the statutory warning to be disapplied to certain cases within the first three months of an order, rather than its being applied to all unacceptable failures to comply with an order. Our position has not changed. If offenders are not returned to court immediately after a first unacceptable failure to comply, a final warning letter must be sent to them explaining the consequences of any further such failure. Clause 48 puts that warning on a statutory footing, and imposes on the probation service a duty to return an offender to court no later than immediately after a second unacceptable failure. That reinforces the new national standard introduced in April.
As I have said before, the offender will have had every opportunity to explain his behaviour and, where necessary, to provide evidence such as medical certificates, appointment cards and details of a family crisis, showing that he had a good reason to miss an appointment.

Jackie Ballard: I know what the Minister is saying, but I think he accepts that many such offenders have a chaotic life style. Does he not also accept that it will take time for a supervising officer to help an offender to change that life style? The proposed three-month period is not intended to go against the spirit of what the Minister is trying to achieve; it is simply intended to provide the necessary time.

Mr. Boateng: We have considered the issue carefully. We moved to the new national standard in April, after a period during which a lighter touch was applied.
We are satisfied that we must begin as we intend to proceed. There is scope for judgments on whether failures to comply are acceptable or unacceptable, and I would expect the considerations mentioned by the hon. Lady to be taken into account in the determination of whether a failure was acceptable or unacceptable. If an individual was in the process of responding positively, and restoring order to a chaotic life style—and, in that context, was able to establish, by means of medical certificates, appointment cards or the provision of other details, why there had been a failure to attend—such an individual could be judged on that basis.
Judgments could be made, on a case-by-case basis, by supervising officers, in accordance with national guidance. We are not talking about removing the capacity

of the individual making the judgment to work with the offender, and to work with the grain of that person's vulnerability. We are saying, "This is the standard that we expect of you".
Unlike the official Opposition, we do not propose an automatic return to court for each unacceptable failure to comply. I am sure that the hon. Lady is under no illusion in regard to where they are coming from. They are not coming from the same place as her. We have seen with our own eyes the attempt to concoct an alliance between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party—an unholy alliance, if I may say so, in the context of this aspect of enforcement.
9.15 pm
Our proposals are pragmatic. They give some discretion to take account of personal circumstances when considering enforcement, and give offenders a chance to respond to a warning about their future conduct. Therefore, we will not be returning offenders to court unnecessarily, but we cannot permit repeated failure to comply, or lax enforcement.

Jackie Ballard: I shall not respond to the comments about the unholy alliance because I am sure that the Minister will have observed that Liberal Democrats vote with the Government when we think that they are right and with the Opposition when we think that they are right. It is not about whom we have alliances with; it is about the issues.
May I probe the Minister a little more and make sure that I understand what he has said? Is he saying that, if the personal circumstances of an offender are such that he has turned up late for two or three appointments in a row, for reasons that he does not have appointment cards to prove—it is because of a chaotic life style that he is working towards changing—the probation officer will have discretion not to breach that offender automatically, or is he saying that the officer will have to breach him automatically?

Mr. Boateng: I am saying that the national standards are there. The law is there on the context and circumstances in which someone needs to be returned, but it is important to remember that the offender will have had every opportunity to explain his behaviour. He will have had an opportunity to produce evidence where it is appropriate.
Judgments will have to be made. People will make them in the context of what they know of the offender. Therefore, a professional judgment must still be made, but we say that the public cannot be expected to have confidence in community penalties unless they are rigorously enforced. Where there is a failure to comply that is deemed to be unacceptable, it is serious and must be dealt with. The probation officer needs to be in a position to make those judgments.

Mr. Brady: Will the Minister confirm that simply saying by way of explanation that one has a chaotic life style would not be sufficient to convince the court?

Mr. Boateng: Of course it would not, and I would not expect it to be sufficient to convince a probation officer. I do not want to be flippant about it, but those of us who


have worked in that area in whatever capacity—whether as lawyers, social workers, probation officers or justices sitting—all know that people come up with the most absurd excuses. They seek to hide behind the notion of a chaotic life style as an excuse for not getting their act together, yet they manage to get their act together remarkably when it comes to the act of signing on and when it is something to which they attach value and importance. We are trying to move towards a situation in which an offender comes to attach value and importance to the court order. I do not think that that is unreasonable. I do not think that it is unreasonable to say that offenders cannot flout or ignore a court order and that, if they do, such conduct will not be condoned by their probation officer.
At its best, the service shows that, where offenders are faced with consistent discipline, and with determination and rigour in terms of enforcement, they respond to that certainty. That enhances the offender's view of the court order. It enhances compliance and the public's confidence in community penalties generally. That is why we want to put the warnings to offenders on a statutory footing.
The amendment attempts to apply the statutory warning scheme only to the so-called more serious cases and, further, only to such of those cases that arise after the first three months since the commencement of the order. It is misguided to allow that grace period to enable someone to come to terms with the discipline of the order. Offenders need to come to terms with it from the word go, and to be helped and assisted in doing so.
Amendment No. 189, as drafted, would not have any practical effect. Offenders in the first three months of their order would simply be given a non-statutory warning for an unacceptable failure to comply and, in accordance with national standards, be returned to court no later than the second such failure. They would face the same penalty for a breach—usually imprisonment—as offenders who are given a statutory warning. That is what the national standards are all about. The amendment would, therefore, remove the deterrent effect of the statutory warning at a time when the consequences of flouting such an order most need to be reinforced.

Mr. Bercow: It would be helpful to the House, in seeking to evaluate the amendments in this group, to know whether the regulations flowing from the unamended clause would be subject to the negative or the affirmative resolution procedure?

Mr. Boateng: We have always taken the view that certain categories of regulation should be subject to the negative procedure, and that others should be subject to the affirmative one. I am quite prepared, if the hon. Gentleman pushes me on it, to share my own view on the issue—on which I do not have a closed mind. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department was even kind enough to suggest that I was noted for my open-mindedness on these issues. Indeed, I could not be more open-minded on an issue than I am on this one.
My mind is currently veering towards the notion of a negative resolution—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."]—but, if my arm were twisted, I could be persuaded that an

affirmative resolution might be more appropriate. What does the hon. Gentleman think about it? Which would he prefer?

Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful to the Minister. In what might be described as the parliamentary equivalent of a time-out in basketball, he could always consult and look for further and better advice. He will not be surprised to know that my own advice, especially after being chastised by him for my uncharacteristic silence in this debate and in our previous consideration of the Bill, is that we should have the affirmative procedure. That procedure—so that members of the public are aware of it—entails providing the opportunity for substantial and considered debate on the regulations' merits, rather than the quite scurrilous process whereby the Government ram them through the House in accordance with the negative procedure, which facilitates no debate at all.

Mr. Boateng: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Then again, he would say that, and I have no doubt that, in his position, I would say the same. I myself am not necessarily persuaded of the need for national standards to be established by any order-making power. Nevertheless, if that is an idea that he has, I am only too happy to consider it. I shall write to him and let him know how my mind develops on that particular issue. I should return to the substantive issue.

Mr. Hayes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boateng: I really must not continue giving way like this. However, I will on this occasion.

Mr. Hayes: I do not want to disrupt the joust between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—especially as I have no knowledge of netball or whatever it was they were dealing with—but I, too, should like to return to the substantial issue. It seems to me—perhaps the Minister will confirm it—that amendment No. 189 is less fair to offenders. Loosening the requirements in the initial period may confuse and bewilder offenders, making them feel that they have more latitude than they really have and that they can play fast and loose with the service. Ultimately, therefore, rejecting the amendment, as the Minister recommends, would be fairer not only to society as a whole, but to offenders themselves.

Mr. Boateng: I am bound to say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is always the difficulty in relation to the Liberal Democrats' approach to the issue. They seek—no doubt with the best will in the world—to be understanding and considerate, but they have missed the point here. The best way to bring about the change or correction—the purpose of the disposal, after all is to change and correct offending behaviour in a community context—is, from the word go, to lay down clear parameters as to what is or is not acceptable. In some instances—as the hon. Member for Taunton will know from her experience—this may be the first time any such parameters have been set in those lives. In doing that, we need to be clear about what we can and cannot get away with.

Jackie Ballard: I guess that the Minister will know what I am about to say. It is very much because it will


be, for some, the first time that parameters have been set that I am suggesting that those concerned need time to learn to adjust to those parameters. Given the three-month period that we are suggesting, it will be clear that any breaches after that period will result in serious consequences.

Mr. Boateng: There is a fundamental difference between us on this matter. We are both agreed as to the end; what we want is compliance. The question is how to get there. Many of the people we are talking about will have been given opportunity after opportunity in the past. They will have received a community penalty in place of a possible prison sentence. There has to be an understanding from the beginning that this opportunity is not given lightly. It is a privilege that will be lost if there is not compliance. That is our considered view. I hear what the hon. Lady says, but we believe that the amendment would take away the deterrent effect of a statutory warning.

Dr. George Turner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if one expects low standards, one will get them? If someone spends the first three months on an order learning that they do not have to obey it because they lead a disorderly life, they are likely to want to plead the same way over the following three months.

Mr. Boateng: I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend, who speaks from experience on these matters. We do not believe that it would be right to accept the amendment, which would take away the deterrent effect of a statutory warning at a time when the consequences of flouting an order most need to be reinforced. The amendment tries to introduce a distinction between unacceptable failures to comply that simply does not exist.
The real distinction is between acceptable and unacceptable failures. That is a question of judgment—a judgment that can take into account a variety of factors. Making that distinction is the professional role of the probation service within national standards and associated guidance. All unacceptable failures to comply are serious and should be dealt with accordingly. We simply cannot accept the philosophy that underpins the amendment and I hope, for that reason, the hon. Member for Taunton will not push it to a vote.
I wish to refer to the Government amendments regarding the extension of electronic monitoring to offenders in the community. That is a separate issue from the debate that we have had about home detention curfews. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, notified the Committee of our intention to table certain amendments to our new exclusion provisions. These would preserve a victim's right to know the relevant terms of the orders, while curtailing their right to more sensitive information about the offender.
The provisions that allow for the extension of electronic monitoring could be used in a variety of circumstances. I much appreciated the support of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) in that regard. An electronically monitored exclusion order, for example, could be used to help prevent a known shoplifter from entering premises in which he was accustomed to steal, such as a shopping centre. Or an offender could be

excluded from a house for the purpose of protecting an individual who lives there. In such a situation, it is eminently reasonable and sensible that the person being protected by the terms of the order, or requirement, should know its terms. If an offender who hangs about the house of a woman during the night is excluded from those premises—I have given an example of the hours between 8 pm and 8 am—the victim should know that that is the case. That will tell her exactly what she should be able to expect within the terms of the order—in other words, when the exclusion order is in effect and when it is not.

Mr. Hawkins: As the Minister appreciates, there is an identity of view between the two sides of the House in relation to the importance of these matters, especially those involving domestic and family violence, on which we had some good debates in Committee. However, will he make it clear that he will keep these provisions under review, especially in the light of the danger, of which he is aware as I am, that sometimes in a domestic violence case there can be wrong on both sides?

Mr. Boateng: I am not sure that I would put it like that. I do not know about wrong on both sides. If there is domestic violence and somebody has been the victim of it, that is wrong. I do not care what is on the other side.

Mr. Hawkins: I am sorry if I did not clarify my point. There can be domestic violence by either spouse against the other. The Minister will have seen cases, as I have, where someone is made the subject of a county court order and constantly allows that order to lapse or be breached, and there is violence on both sides. That is my concern.

Mr. Boateng: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. When there is a development in the law of this nature and when there is a link between that and the development of technology, it is always important to keep matters under review. It is undoubtedly the case that technology can give reassurance to both sides in a domestic dispute. It provides irrefutable evidence and avoids a situation in which one person says yea and the other nay. That is a difficult situation for a court to untangle, and I think that the hon. Gentleman was referring to that. Technology will avoid that.

Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister clarify for the purpose of the debate that an individual who is subject to an exclusion order would be guilty of its breach if he were to enter the property or immediate environ of the person protected from him, and if he were to communicate with that person either by telephone or in writing?

Mr. Boateng: That would depend on the order. Most orders include contact, directly or indirectly. In those circumstances, yes, there would be a breach.
We have talked about these matters in terms of domestic violence, and rightly so. The provisions give an immediate value-added element to the development of technology in this area. I also see them as having a real impact in terms of a certain category of offences committed in shopping malls and shopping centres. There will undoubtedly be an advantage for the managers of those centres or spaces.
I think that it was last year that I saw an example in Wood Green, where there is an excellent relationship between the local police, local retailers and the private security firm that provides the security in Wood Green. The scheme is clearly being implemented in the interests of reducing retail crime, and those concerned have access to the information that X, Y and Z have been tagged. They will then know, given the machinery that they might install in the mall, when someone is in breach of an order.

Dr. George Turner: On a topical subject, might such an exclusion order apply to football grounds?

Mr. Boateng: How very topical. I understand that we have lost 3–2. Yes, the order would certainly have a use in football grounds.
This has been a good debate. We have shared a range of opinions, there has been remarkable unanimity and some probing questions have been asked. My mind, which was very much open to the input of hon. Members of all parties, has been developing in relation to the affirmative resolution and final warning provisions. I am very glad to be able to tell the hon. Member for Buckingham that those provisions will apply to community orders listed in schedule 3 to the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, and the list may be amended by affirmative resolution.
On that happy consensual note, I commend the Government amendments and ask the House to reject amendment No. 122.

Mr. Bercow: I support the amendment, because it is so eminently reasonable and so manifestly sensible that it could be damaging to the reputation of our politics for the Government to insist on rejecting it. The House and the wider public should be aware of that.
I returned earlier the compliment that the Minister kindly bestowed on me and said that I had a great regard for him. I believe that he is a truly brilliant man, although in all fairness he must yield in terms of brilliance to my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). As the late Enoch Powell was wont to observe, one sometimes encounters people who are so clever as to be unable to see the simplest point. In this context, that is peculiarly applicable to the Minister.
The amendment is sound, reasonable and fair and suffers from only one political disadvantage: it was tabled by the shadow Home Office team. For that reason, I suspect, the Minister said to his advisers, "I beg you, I kneel before you, I beseech you to offer me some excuse to oppose the amendment." I greatly regret the fact that the Government have decided to do that. I believe that it is wrong and unfair, and I hope that the House will support the amendment.
My second criticism of the Minister is that he violently abused the National Association of Probation Officers. He was challenged to provide the evidence discrediting its claim to represent its members. The Minister is a product of Apsley grammar school, Bristol university and the College of Law, yet he was reduced to saying that his impression from his chats with probation officers in his perambulations around the country was that they disagreed with the national leadership. That was a triumph of anecdotalism over the professional integrity and representativeness of the association.
My third reason for disappointment in the Minister is that he has backtracked on the welcome humility that he displayed at Home Office questions on 13 March. On that occasion, I welcomed his sensible climbdown on the name of the probation service. In deference to the representations that he had received, he dropped his silly idea of renaming the body with a very long-winded title.
My anxiety is that I have paid a price for my silence in the intervening period—a silence for which the Minister roundly criticised me this evening. I took my eye off the ball, and the right hon. Gentleman used the opportunity to get his own back. It clearly stuck in his gullet 91 days ago to withdraw his proposed renaming, and he now proposes the renaming of a series of penalties. He is wrong to do so. There is no empirical justification for the proposed change. His intention to go ahead with it makes it clear that the right hon. Gentleman is not aware of, or has not taken to heart, the wise adage of Lord Falkland, who said:
When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.

Mr. Hawkins: This has been an interesting debate, in which we have had arcane discussions about the negative resolution procedure. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) extracted a significant concession from the Minister, who originally said that he was not sure whether the procedure to be used was the negative or the affirmative resolution procedure. In the end, we discovered that the affirmative resolution procedure would be used. That is right, and my hon. Friend made his points well.
I could not disagree more strongly with the hon. Members for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) and for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who suggested in their interventions that the Minister's anecdotal evidence from probation officers was to be preferred to the professional opinion of the National Association of Probation Officers.
There is no doubt that probation orders and community service orders are well understood by the courts. That is the acid test, as it is the courts that impose them. I believe that the titles of the orders have become better known to the public over the past 25 years, and they are certainly better known than the complicated mouthful of replacement titles that the Government have produced.
We had a sensible debate about the importance of electronic monitoring in relation to domestic violence. Members of all parties agreed about the essential need to protect victims, but the most important element of this group of amendments remains the Government's unwise and unnecessary proposed change to the orders. In view of the Government's saying that they still have an open mind on the protection of victims, and of the fact that the Minister gave a more reasonable reply to our amendment while indicating that he could not accept it now, I am hoping that wiser counsels will prevail over time and that something akin to amendment No. 122 may be accepted. I see the Minister nodding, and I take heart from that, because he may at some stage be prepared to accept something alone the lines that we propose.
In those circumstances, although I will be asking my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote with me on amendment No. 123, I intend to withdraw amendment No. 122 in the light of the Minister's comments. However, on amendment No. 123—the matter that we regard as the most substantial in the group as it deals with the


Government's wholly unnecessary change of titles, which has been opposed by the National Association of Probation Officers and by probation committees up and down the country—I will be inviting all right hon. and hon. Members to vote with us.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9

APPROVED BAIL HOSTELS, ETC.

Amendment proposed: No. 123, in page 5, line 3, leave out "community rehabilitation" and insert "probation".—[Mr. Hawkins.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 289.

Division No. 227]
[9.45 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David


Amess, David
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Horam, John


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hunter, Andrew


Bercow, John
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Beresford, Sir Paul
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Blunt, Crispin
Jenkin, Bernard


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Key, Robert


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Brady, Graham
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lansley, Andrew


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Letwin, Oliver


Burns, Simon
Lidington, David


Cash, William
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)



Loughton, Tim


Clappison, James
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Collins, Tim
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Cran, James
McLoughlin, Patrick


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Malins, Humfrey


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Maples, John


Day, Stephen
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
May, Mrs Theresa


Duncan Smith, Iain
Moss, Malcolm


Evans, Nigel
Nicholls, Patrick


Faber, David
Norman, Archie


Fabricant, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Page, Richard


Flight, Howard
Paice, James


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Paterson, Owen


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Pickles, Eric


Fox, Dr Liam
Prior, David


Gale, Roger
Randall, John


Gibb, Nick
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gill, Christopher
Robathan, Andrew


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Robertson, Laurence


Gray, James
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Green, Damian
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Greenway, John
Ruffley, David


Grieve, Dominic
St Aubyn, Nick


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hammond, Philip
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hawkins, Nick
Shepherd, Richard


Hayes, John
Simpson, Keith (Mid—Norfolk)


Heald, Oliver
Soames, Nicholas





Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Tyrie, Andrew


Spicer, Sir Michael
Walter, Robert


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Waterson, Nigel


Streeter, Gary
Wells, Bowen


Swayne, Desmond
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Syms, Robert
Whittingdale, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)



Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Yeo Tim


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Sir Teddy



Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tredinnick, David
Mr. Peter Luff and


Trend, Michael
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Ainger, Nick
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Dalyell, Tam


Ashton, Joe
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Atherton, Ms Candy
Darvill, Keith


Atkins, Charlotte
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Austin, John
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Ballard, Jackie
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Beard, Nigel
Dawson, Hilton


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Denham, John


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Dobbin, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Donohoe, Brian H


Benton, Joe
Doran, Frank


Best, Harold
Dowd, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Drew, David


Blizzard, Bob
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Borrow, David
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Efford, Clive


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bradshaw, Ben
Ennis, Jeff


Brand, Dr Peter
Etherington, Bill


Breed, Colin
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fisher, Mark


Browne, Desmond
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Burden, Richard
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Butler, Mrs Christine
Flint, Caroline


Cable, Dr Vincent
Flynn, Paul


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Caplin, Ivor
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Caton, Martin
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Cawsey, Ian
Foulkes, George


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Galloway, George


Chaytor, David
Gardiner, Barry


Chidgey, David
Gerrard, Neil


Clapham, Michael
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gidley, Sandra


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Godman, Dr Norman A



Godsiff, Roger


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Goggins, Paul


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clwyd, Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Coaker, Vemon
Grogan, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Coleman, Iain
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Colman, Tony
Hanson, David


Connarty, Michael
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Cooper, Yvette
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Corbett, Robin
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cotter, Brian
Heppell, John


Cousins, Jim
Hill, Keith






Hinchliffe, David
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Hoey, Kate



Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Mountford, Kali


Hope, Phil
Mudie, George


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mullin, Chris


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Howells, Dr Kim
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Norris, Dan


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Humble, Mrs Joan
O'Hara, Eddie


Hurst, Alan
Olner, Bill


Hutton, John
Organ, Mrs Diana


Iddon, Dr Brian
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Illsley, Eric
Pearson, Ian


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pickthall, Colin


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pike Peter L


Jamieson David
Plaskitt, James


Jenkins, Brian
Pollard, Kerry


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pond, Chris



Pope, Greg


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pound, Stephen


Jones Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Primarolo, Dawn


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prosser, Gwyn


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Purchase, Ken


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kemp, Fraser
Quinn, Lawrie


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Khabra, Piara S
Raynsford, Nick


Kidney, David
Reid, Rt Hon Dr Jonn (Hamilton N)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rendel, David


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Roche, Mrs Berbara


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Lepper, David
Rooney, Terry


Leslie, Christopher
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Levitt, Tom
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ruddock, Joan


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Linton, Martin
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Love, Andrew
Ryan, Ms Joan


McAllion, John
Salter, Martin


McAvoy, Thomas
Savidge, Malcolm


McCabe, Steve
Sedgemore, Brian


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Singh, Marsha



Skinner, Dennis


McDonagh, Siobhain
Smith Angela (Basildon)


McDonnell, John
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McGuire, Mrs Anne



McIsaac, Shona
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Soley, Clive


McNulty, Tony
Squire, Ms Rachel


MacShane, Denis
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McWilliam, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stevenson, George


Mallaber, Judy



Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Martlew, Eric
Stunell, Andrew


Meale, Alan
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Merron, Gillian
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun



Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Temple—Morris, Peter


Miller, Andrew
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Mitchell, Austin
Timms, Stephen


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Tipping, Paddy


Moore, Michael
Todd, Mark


Moran, Ms Margaret
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Morley, Elliot
Touhig, Don





Trickett, Jon
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Truswell, Paul



Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Wills, Michael


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Willson, Brian


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Winnick, David


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Wood, Mike


Twigg, Stephens (Enfield)
Woodward, Shaun


Walley, Ms Joan
Worthington, Tony


Ward, Ms Claire
Wray, James


Ward, Ms Claire
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Wareing, Robert N
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Watts, David
Wyatt, Derek


Webb, Steve



White, Brian
Tellers for the Noes:


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Mr. Graham Allen and


Wicks, Malcolm
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 124, in page 5, line 11, at end insert—
'(4) Before giving approval to a hostel or other premises under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the local community has been adequately consulted about the establishment of the hostel or other premises and that arrangements are in place for liaison with the local community about the operation of the hostel or other premises after approval is given.'.
We raised this issue in some detail in Committee because several hon. Members on both sides of the Committee had had experience of controversies about the establishment of bail or probation hostels in their constituencies. I was involved in a significant dispute about a proposal for such a hostel in which members from all three main political parties joined in a campaign to stop a wholly unsuitable property being used for a probation and bail hostel, so I am well aware of the strong feelings that can be engendered.
In the case with which I was involved, a decision was made not to establish the hostel, but it took a long and concerted campaign with all-party support before that decision was made. There was much protest because the building involved was on the route that parents with very young children used on their way to and from nursery and other schools. It was proposed that serious offenders, including some who had been convicted of serious offences against children, should be put in that hostel, but it was clear that the wrong site had been chosen. It was not a "not in my backyard" dispute. Most of the campaigners freely conceded that—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
Question agreed to.
As amended in the Standing Committee, again considered.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Hawkins: The case was one in which most of those who opposed the use of that property accepted the need for a bail or probation hostel somewhere, but felt that the wrong site had been chosen. In Committee, it was made clear that my hon. Friend the Member for


Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) had had similar experiences, and other hon. Members had also faced similar challenges. In the case in which I had some involvement, some of those who were not then Members of Parliament—such as the now hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble)—were involved when they were in local government, so this matter concerns all parties.
In Committee, Ministers recognised that serious issues needed to be confronted, and they dealt constructively with the debate at that stage in the Bill's proceedings. I hope that we will receive a similarly constructive response from the Government tonight. I claim no particular magic in the wording that we have chosen in the amendment—we simply wish to raise the issue again—because, perhaps in the other place, others may have views.
We want to keep the issue alive, because we should like the Bill in its final form to contain a provision along the lines of that contained in our amendment. We want to see some recognition, if necessary through a differently worded Government amendment, of the need to consult the local community. Concerns were expressed on both sides of the Committee—and they are concerns shared by hon. Members from many different political parties whenever bail and probation hostels are proposed. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively.

Mr. Boateng: We had a good debate around the issue in Committee and I do not intend to replicate that tonight by rehearsing all the arguments. However, few hon. Members, in their constituency capacity, will not have had to wrestle with such issues at some time. Undoubtedly, such matters can provoke real dissension and fracturing in the local community.
We all know that hostels, and those who work in them, play a vital role in protecting the public and in rehabilitation. Often that is an unsung and thankless task, and tonight we can give some due recognition to the front-line workers in the probation and related services who do that valuable work.
In responding to this debate, I have in mind the need to ensure that we do nothing that undermines the work of those front-line hostel workers and their management committees, because it is difficult enough at the best of times without being plunged into the midst of community dissension. We must also approach this topic with due caution, so as not to do anything that would undermine the integrity of the local planning process. However exasperating that may be from time to time for Members of Parliament, it is in the end our surest protection in terms of the balance of our various responsibilities between national Government and national representation on one hand, and local government and local representation on the other.
For that reason, I cannot accept the amendment as drafted. It would impose two parallel and coterminous duties on two Secretaries of State: the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who is responsible for the planning process, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is responsible for the approved hostel process. That can only be confusing

and unsatisfactory and act as a potential cause of division, when we should be doing everything possible to encourage joined-up, not splintered, government.

Mr. Hawkins: In his final phrase, the Minister made the point that I intended to make. Surely. if the Government genuinely believe in joined-up government and joined-up thinking, not merely as rhetoric, but as reality, they will perceive an advantage in thus linking the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Mr. Boateng: The responsibilities involved are distinct, but related: one for the planning process, the other for the approved hostel process. The planning process is a statutory process and therefore has to be a statutory responsibility. The approved hostel process is one in which, as a matter of policy, the Secretary of State for the Home Department approves a specific hostel for the purposes laid down in statute; that approval is carried out on the basis of policy guidance, so it is an administrative, not a statutory, process. I assure the House that that policy guidance requires checks to be made to ensure that appropriate consultation has taken place. Our best defence lies in ensuring that the policy guidance is adequate and appropriate in terms of the consultative process to be undertaken, and in so doing ensuring that the respective roles of different Secretaries of State are not confused.
My second concern, which I am sure the House will share, relates to the definition of "community". In the context of the amendment, it is vague and non-specific. If the consultation were too extensive or drawn too widely, the result might be to encourage nimbyism, which is already a problem. No new hostel would ever be approved, because it would be bound to alienate someone, or be opposed by some interest or individual. The judgment on how broadly to consult is best determined locally, by those who are closest to and best understand the local community. That is not to say that consultation is not a vital task; it is, and it must be carried out with care and sensitivity. However, I do not believe that we shall be doing our constituents any favours if we impose on the whole process the additional burdens contained in the amendment.
We must be careful not to undermine the thrust of Government policy. Let me give an example of how that might, inadvertently, be the result of the amendment's being accepted. Suppose that a voluntary organisation was already operating in an area, working with a hostel that already had all the relevant planning approvals. Along comes the Secretary of State for the Home Department, seeking to make the hostel an approved hostel. Were the amendment to be accepted, the organisation running the hostel—say, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders—would have to open fresh consultation on whether it should become an approved hostel. In such circumstances, it might be difficult to persuade voluntary sector organisations to enter into partnerships with the Home Office or the national probation service for England and Wales to deliver hostel accommodation in the right place to meet the purposes of rehabilitation and public protection.
Once the hostel is operating it is much better to leave liaison with the community to those with responsibility for running the hostel. Certainly, they need guidance for


that, and they should involve Members of Parliament, local councillors, the immediate neighbours, relevant local community organisations and the police
We should be travelling down that road of more effective liaison, consultation and guidance, rather than down the road of statutory duties, which could open up the possibility of the confusion of roles that I outlined, act as a deterrent to voluntary organisations entering into partnership, as I described, and, horror upon horrors, open up the possibility of yet more legal challenges to the adequacy of arrangements, resulting in undue expense and delay.
I understand why the hon. Gentleman moved the amendment. Every constituency Member knows of the difficulties that can arise. I shall reflect on whether we could do more by way of administrative guidance on the matter. It is an area worth exploring, and we may need to return to it. However, I ask the House not to go down the statutory route proposed by the amendment.

Mr. Hawkins: I recognise and welcome the Minister's constructive comments, particularly at the end of his remarks. In the light of his helpful indication that the Government will continue to keep the matter under review, and examine the guidance to see whether more can be done, I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment, with one proviso: the matter may be debated further in another place, and we may table an amendment with slightly different wording, to see whether by then the Government will accept it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29

SECTIONS 27 AND 28: SUPPLEMENTAL

Amendments made: No. 7, in page 13, line 34, at end insert—
' "guardianship order" means a guardianship order within the meaning of the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955, the Naval Discipline Act 1957 or the Mental Health Act 1983,'.
No. 8, in page 14, line 12, leave out—
'within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 32

CONDITIONS FOR APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 31

Amendments made: No. 9, in page 16, line 4, leave out—
'within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983'.
No. 10, in page 16, line 8, at end insert—
' "guardianship order" has the same meaning as in section 29,'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 34

MEANING OF "REGULATED POSITION"

Amendments made: No. 11, in page 17, line 42, after "person" insert "who holds a position".

No. 12, in page 17, line 44, leave out from second "of' to end of line 45 and insert "an educational institution".

No. 13, in page 18, leave out line 11.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 37

INTERPRETATION OF PART II

Amendments made: No. 14, in page 19, line 43, leave out from "children" to end of line 44.

No. 15, in page 20, leave out lines 1 and 2.

No. 16, in page 20, leave out lines 9 and 10.

No. 17, in page 20, leave out lines 14 and 15.

No. 18, in page 20, leave out lines 20 to 24.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 41

EXCLUSION ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 19, in page 23, line 37, leave out "40B below" and insert "36B above".

No. 20, in page 23, line 45, leave out from "any" to end of line 47 and insert "affected person".

No. 21, in page 24, line 2, leave out from "offender" to end of line 3 and insert—
'and the responsible officer, and
(b) give to any affected person any information relating to the order which the court considers it appropriate for him to have.'.'

No. 22, in page 24, line 4, leave out "and section 40B below".

No. 23, in page 24, line 5, at end insert—

'(12A) For the purposes of this Act, a person is an affected person in relation to an exclusion order if—

(a) a requirement under section 36B(1) above is included in the order by virtue of his consent, or
(b) a prohibition is included in the order for the purpose (or partly for the purpose) of protecting him from being approached by the offender.'.

No. 24, in page 24, leave out lines 11 to 32.

No. 25, in page 24, line 42, leave out from "orders" to "; and" in line 44.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 42

DRUG ABSTINENCE ORDERS

Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 130, in page 25, line 16, after "A", insert "or Class B'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 131, in page 25, line 27, after "A", insert "or Class B".
No. 132, in page 25, line 31, after "A", insert "or Class B".
No. 2, in page 25, line 32, at end insert—
(c) the court is satisfied that an appropriate programme of drug treatment is available in the relevant area and can be provided for the offender.'.
No. 3, in page 26, line 18, at end insert—
'(d) where and when the treatment for drug abuse is to be made available to the offender.'.
No. 133, in clause 43, page 26, line 41, after "A", insert "or Class B".
Government amendment No. 26.
No. 134, in clause 44, page 27, line 19, after "A" insert "or Class B".
No. 135, in page 27, line 29, after "A", insert "or Class B".
No. 136, in page 27, line 36, after "A", insert "or Class B".
No. 137, in page 27, line 38, after "A", insert "or Class B".
No. 145, in clause 52, page 35, line 17, after "A', insert "or Class B".
No. 146, in page 35, line 26, after "A', insert "or Class B".
No. 147, in page 36, line 23, after "A', insert "or Class B".
No. 148, in page 36, line 25, after "A', insert "or Class B".
No. 161, in clause 57, page 40, line 17, after "A", insert "or Class B".
No. 162, in clause 58, page 40, line 31, after "A", insert "or Class B".
No. 163, in clause 59, page 40, line 40, after "A", insert "or Class B".
No. 164, in page 40, line 42, after "A", insert "or Class B".
No. 165, in page 41, line 6, after "A", insert "or Class B".
No. 168, in schedule 5, page 53, line 14, after "A", insert "or Class B".

Mr. Hawkins: Although there is a lengthy list of amendments in the group, the House will realise that they are largely consequential, one on another. There is one principle at stake: we believe that in the new regime that the Government are setting out, which we debated at length in Committee, they are unwise to restrict the operation of the provisions only to class A drugs. We recognise, of course, that class A drugs are the most serious, but we believe that it would be helpful if the Government added class B drugs.
I direct the Minister's attention to research carried out by the Home Office. In 1996 and 1997, the Home Office commissioned a research project at Cambridge university into drug use by arrestees. The project took place in five contrasting areas—Sunderland, Nottingham, Manchester, Cambridge and London. With respect to the recent drug consumption of those arrested, tests showed comparatively high levels—61 per cent. of those arrested had taken at least one illegal drug, and 27 per cent. tested positive for two or more drugs. The drug that was found most often in the tests, with 46 per cent. of arrestees testing positive for it, was cannabis.
10.15 pm
We have referred earlier—not only tonight but in Committee and on Second Reading—to the fact that many hon. Members have had extensive professional dealings with drug offenders. For example, some have prosecuted or defended them, while others have dealt with them through their work as social workers, probation officers or

youth workers. However, no one who has been involved professionally can doubt that cannabis is the most prevalent drug.
When considering the causes of and influences on crime, I hope that we can agree that drug use is a major factor.

Jackie Ballard: I would be interested in the hon. Gentleman's answer to two questions. Given the well documented stronger link between alcohol misuse and crimes of violence, why has not the hon. Gentleman included alcohol in the amendment? What is the evidence that cannabis is linked to crime?

Mr. Hawkins: On the hon. Lady's second question, I point to the Home Office research on drug use, which I mentioned earlier. If the hon. Lady talked to police officers who are regularly involved in drugs work, they would say that many crimes are committed by those who have taken cannabis, or in order to raise funds to feed a cannabis habit. The hon. Lady shakes her head. We know that the Liberal Democrats have held some interesting views on the legalisation of cannabis. Liberal Democrat conferences have voted for it several times. I do not know whether the hon. Lady voted for it—perhaps she will tell us.

Jackie Ballard: To set the record straight, the vote in the Liberal Democrat conference was on whether to set up a royal commission to consider drug misuse, including the possible decriminalisation of cannabis. I voted for the establishment of such a royal commission.

Mr. Hawkins: When such matters are debated, we know where the Liberal Democrats are coming from. I note that the Minister smiles. On this occasion, the hon. Lady is being disingenuous; we know the views of many leading members of her party.

Mr. Simon Hughes: At least we vote for what we believe in.

Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman should do me the courtesy of acknowledging that I also vote for what I believe in. However, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's honesty in indicating his true beliefs on the issue that we are considering. We are holding an useful debate. Often, late at night, the truth will out in the Chamber.

Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North): Will the hon. Gentleman consider the first point that the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) made, about alcohol? The hon. Gentleman prayed in aid the large number of policemen who would state that there was a close relationship between crime and the use of cannabis. Does he agree that the same number of policemen habitually imbibe alcohol?

Mr. Hawkins: I am sure that, when off duty, many police officers enjoy a drink as much as the next man and certainly as much as this man. In Committee, the hon. Member for Taunton made great play of the fact that she was an abstainer. Through a question from the hon.


Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), we discovered that she even abstains from salt. If she is announcing a new Liberal Democrat—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are straying a little too far from the amendment.

Mr. Hawkins: Of course I respect your ruling as always, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However the hon. Lady asked whether alcohol should be included in the amendment. I was simply speculating about whether there was a new Liberal Democrat policy to introduce prohibition. I hope that that is not the case. That would mean that even fewer Liberal Democrats would be elected at the next general election. On current polls, there will be few anyway.
We are considering a serious matter. The official Opposition believe that class B drugs should be included in the orders. We look forward to the Minister's response. The issues that we are discussing should be considered very seriously.

Jackie Ballard: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 2 and 3, which my hon. Friends and I tabled. I shall try not to rehearse the gist of the detailed arguments that we had in Committee.
Abstinence orders should not be imposed unless the court is satisfied that an appropriate programme of drug treatment is available in the court area and can be provided for offenders. Before making an order, the court should explain the effect of the order and the consequences of failure to abstain and also tell the offender where and when treatment is to be made available to him or her. It is widely accepted among those who work in the drugs field that class. A users will not stop or abstain from using such drugs just because the court tells them to. Indeed, if they have a persistent drug habit, they cannot abstain just because they are told to, and it may be dangerous if they do. Home Office guidance on drug treatment and testing orders states:
Simply stopping taking a dependent drug can be serious and even life-threatening. Offenders who are dependent should be warned against sudden cessation of use in such cases.
The simple requirement to abstain gives the impression that change can be instant, but we all know that it is not likely to be so. A positive test result would be a breach of the order. In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, said that a probation officer would keep track of progress by using random drug testing. She said that research from the United States suggests that drug testing alone can deter drug use, but she was not aware of any long-term follow-up studies to see whether that continued beyond the point at which the testing stopped. The Minister of State said in Committee that coercion alone helps people to restore order to drug-abusive lives. Abstinence orders may not be effective in the short term—indeed, they may even be dangerous—and will not be effective in the long term without treatment.
I acknowledge the drink—[Laughter.] Acknowledging the drink and imbibing it are two different things. I meant to say that I acknowledge the link between class A drug abuse, addiction and acquisitive crime. Drug abuse is a chronic relapsing condition and drug treatment can make a positive and significant impact on abusers and addicts.

People have to wait between eight weeks and 12 months for treatment in different parts of the country. The Home Office acknowledges the postcode lottery of availability of treatment, as was obvious from the Home Secretary's statement last week.
A few weeks ago, I asked the Home Secretary in this place if he would set a target for the maximum waiting time for drug treatment. None is in place at the moment and the Government still seem to be reluctant to have such a target. However, the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs entitled "Alternatives to Prison Sentences" recommended that the Government set an objective for all drug misusing offenders who are given community sentences to have access to appropriate treatment. I agree with that recommendation and believe that offenders should be told explicitly by the court how the provision of treatment will help them to comply with an abstinence order.
I do not underestimate the extra resources that will be needed to provide treatment for all drug abusers. Indeed, I wonder whether the Government are reluctant to accept the amendment because they are aware that it will require extra resources.

Dr. Brian Iddon: Is not one of the problems that there is an almost total absence of abstinence programmes across Britain? I am aware of only one professional programme in Greater Manchester, to which people are referred from the whole of the north-west. We need more abstinence programmes to help people through a period of coming off drugs.

Jackie Ballard: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman. The gist of my argument is that imposing an abstinence order alone will not help people to come off drugs: they also need proper programmes to help them. That will also demand the provision of many more drugs advice workers, who will need to be recruited and trained, especially if we are not to end up with the only route to treatment being through the criminal justice system.
Studies in the United Kingdom and the United States show that for every pound spent on treatment of drug users, £3 is saved in the criminal justice system. Although there is certainly a resourcing issue in the short term, the criminal justice system would save money in the long term if the measures were successful.
If the Government really intend to tackle the problems of the link between class. A drug abuse and crime, they must invest more in the provision of treatment and speedier access to it. Without that, abstinence orders will be meaningless and will merely lead to more offenders ending up in the prison system.

Jane Kennedy: Although we had a lighthearted discussion of these issues in Committee, I acknowledge the serious points made by the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) in Committee and on the Floor of the House.
I shall deal first with the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and his colleagues. I am afraid that I am going to disappoint the hon. Gentleman by inviting my hon. Friends to resist his amendments if I cannot persuade him that there is no need to press them to a vote.
The amendments seek to add class B drugs, which include cannabis and amphetamine, to the specified class A drugs, heroin and cocaine, which will be tested for under our proposals. The Bill offers a comprehensive approach to drug misuse, and the remedy suggested in the amendments is too simplistic. Our proposals are based on sound research evidence. They are a proportionate response to the very serious problem posed to society by drug-related crime. There is no disagreement between hon. Members on the serious nature of that problem.
The hon. Gentleman helpfully drew attention to our drug testing of arrestees research programme. I shall refer to elements of the research that he did not highlight. It showed that property crime funded around 75 per cent. of the total income of arrestees. [Interruption.] "Arrestees" are those arrested. Unfortunately, "drug testing of arrestees" is the name of the research programme. We have been heavily into names during our debates. One third of arrestees' total income was spent buying heroin, crack and/or cocaine.
We have no compelling evidence at present to suggest that a similar link exists between other drugs—in class A or class B—and the commission of crime on a similar scale. If research evidence of a link involving other drugs becomes available, we will consider including those in the testing programme.
We are piloting the new regime to evaluate its effectiveness and to find out what works best before we decide how to roll it out further. Initially, we are concentrating the pilots on property criminals and on the drugs—heroin, crack and/or cocaine—that research tells us are most clearly associated with the drugs-crime cycle. The Bill already contains powers to extend the range of drugs tested and the trigger offences if research evidence justifies that. If the pilots are successful, roll-out will be done when all necessary facilities, including prison places, are available. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman.
Before I deal with the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Taunton, I shall deal quickly with Government amendment No. 26, which is a minor drafting amendment, but none the less important. It will make it clear to the courts that the pre-sentence drug test, along with the other drug-testing provisions, will be piloted in the first instance, as I have just described, and that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will notify the courts when arrangements are in place for the provision to be brought into effect. It mirrors the similar provision already included in respect of drug abstinence orders and requirements.
Let me spell it out again: the purpose of the pilots will be to test our assumptions about the value of drug testing in reducing crime and illegal drug taking. Drug treatment and testing orders were also piloted in the first instance. A preliminary evaluation by researchers from South Bank university informed our decision to roll-out the drug treatment and testing order nationally from next October.
10.30 pm
The hon. Member for Taunton has tabled two amendments that I firmly believe would detract from the effectiveness of the drug abstinence order by making

unrealistic and often unnecessary requirements for the availability of treatment services before the court may make such an order. That is not to diminish the importance of the availability of treatment, but a drug abstinence order targets those offenders under probation supervision who do not require immediate treatment, although their drug misuse requires monitoring. Drug abstinence orders are primarily designed for offenders who have a propensity for drug misuse, but who do not need immediate treatment.
Interventions to identify and monitor drug misuse are planned for those on charge, on bail, on community service or under other forms of community supervision, including release from prison on licence. The drug abstinence order is an integral part of that strategy. In particular, it will complement the drug treatment and testing order, which is principally aimed at offenders who commit high-volume acquisitive crime to feed a drug habit, are assessed as requiring treatment for drug misuse and are motivated to enter treatment.
Those offenders who do not require treatment or who are not motivated to enter it may well be suitable for a drug abstinence order, which will enable supervising officers to monitor their progress by using random and mandatory drug tests. There is already evidence from the mandatory drug testing programme in prisons that testing, although not a panacea in itself, can have the deterrent effect on hard drug misuse that we are looking for. A positive test under a drug abstinence order would alert supervising officers to potentially problematic behaviour and the need for remedial action, including provision of treatment where necessary.
Our strategy is to have in place drug interventions at each stage of the criminal justice process to identify drug misusers and, where appropriate, to get them into treatment and monitor their progress.

Jackie Ballard: I want to be absolutely sure that I understand the hon. Lady correctly. Are abstinence orders designed not for class A addicts, but only for occasional class A drug users?

Jane Kennedy: I resist the invitation to specify the groups of offenders for which drug abstinence orders might be appropriate. They will be appropriate for some offenders in some circumstances. Some offenders do not opt for treatment—they resist it—but it may be possible to get them to agree to a drug abstinence order. The mandatory testing that will be part of the order will allow the supervising officers to follow their progress. We would know that such individuals had a drug habit and we would want to monitor their progress in resisting the use of the drug.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have another question on the same lines. I understand what the Minister says about the difference between monitoring people's continuing abstinence and providing treatment. Following the Home Secretary's statement last week and his speech, can she tell us whether the Government have a target for the maximum time for treatment where it is required as part of the continuing rehabilitation process?

Jane Kennedy: No, we do not have a target, but I say to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Taunton


that we are aware that coverage for the treatment of drug misuse is not yet complete. Considerable resources are being put into treatment—£20 million into arrest and referral schemes and £56 million into drug treatment and testing orders—but we recognise that there is a shortage of capacity. That is being addressed.

Dr. Iddon: Will counselling be applied to an individual who accepts an abstinence order? If it is not available, I cannot see the orders succeeding.

Jane Kennedy: As I understand it, the failure of a drug test by an individual subject to a drug abstinence order would be reported to the court, and it would be for the court to determine what measures should be applied to that individual. It would depend on the circumstances in each case. I do not say that counselling will not form part of the package, but it will be for the court to decide.
I was talking about the shortage of capacity in the overall programme of intervention in drug misuse. We are aware of that shortage, and it is being addressed. One initiative that is in hand is a joint Department of Health and Home Office recruitment campaign for drugs workers. By April 2001, up to 685 drugs workers will be recruited and trained. Those are important steps; this is a major investment in an important part of our work.
Treatment availability will continue to be developed. In the meantime, the existence of any gaps should not constitute a reason for denying the opportunity of identifying drug-misusing offenders at arrest, and monitoring their behaviour on bail or while under probation supervision. That will go a long way towards reducing the damage being done to communities by drug-related crime.

Mr. Hawkins: I am encouraged by the Minister's helpful and serious response. She said that the Government would keep the matter under review. She also said that, at a later stage, they might well consider amendments along the lines that we suggest in relation to class B drugs, and that they will monitor the effects of provisions that the Government have, in fact, drafted very carefully. I shall therefore seek leave to withdraw the amendment, but, once again, with the proviso that the other place may well return to the issue.
I beg to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 43

PRE-SENTENCE DRUG TESTING

Amendment made: No. 26, in page 27, line 5, at end insert—
'(4) The court shall not make an order under subsection (2) above unless it has been notified by the Secretary of State that the power to make such orders is exercisable by the court and the notice has not been withdrawn'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 45

COMMUNITY SENTENCES: CURFEW REQUIREMENTS

Amendments made: No. 27, in page 28, line 38, leave out subsection (3).

No. 28, in page 29, line 25, leave out subsection (9).—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 46

COMMUNITY SENTENCES: EXCLUSION REQUIREMENTS

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 30, line 10, leave out subsection (3).

No. 30, in page 30, line 35, leave out subsection (8).—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 47

MONITORING OF REQUIREMENTS IN COMMUNITY REHABILITATION ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 31, in page 31, line 8, leave out clause 47.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 51

PLACE FOR GIVING REPRIMANDS AND WARNINGS

Amendment made: No. 32, in page 35, line 10, at end insert—

'( ) In section 34 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (limitations on police detention), for subsection (5)(b) there is substituted—

"(b) that, in respect of any such matter, proceedings may be taken against him or he may be reprimanded or warned under section 65 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998".'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 55

ABOLITION OF SENTENCES OF DETENTION IN A YOUNG OFFENDER INSTITUTION AND CUSTODY FOR LIFE

Amendments made: No. 33, in page 38, line 25, at end insert—
'and no court is to make a custodial order except in relation to a person who is aged at least 17 but under 18.
( ) No court is to commit a person to be detained under section 108 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (detention of persons aged at least 18 but under 21 for default or contempt) or make an order fixing a term of detention under that section'.

No. 34, in page 38, line 28, leave out "or".
No. 35, in page 38, line 29, after "life" insert—
'or to a custodial order'.
No. 36, in page 38, line 30, after "aged" insert "at least 18 but".
No. 37, in page 38, line 32, at end insert—

'(2A) A person who—

(a) has been committed (before the coming into force of this section) to be detained under section 108 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 or in respect of whom an order fixing a term of detention under that section has been made (before the coming into force of this section), and
(b) is aged under 21,

may be detained in a young offender institution, or in a prison, determined by the Secretary of State'.

No. 38, in page 38, line 37, after "(2)" insert "or (2A)".

No. 39, in page 38, line 44, at end insert—
'( )In this section—
court" includes a court-martial and a Standing Civilian Court,

"custodial order" means an order under—

(a) section 71AA of, or paragraph 10 of Schedule 5A to, the Army Act 1955.
(b) section 71AA of, or paragraph 10 of Schedule 5A to, the Air Force Act 1955,
(c) section 43AA of, or paragraph 10 of Schedule 4A to, the Naval Discipline Act 1957.'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 56

RELEASE ON LICENCE ETC: CONDITIONS AS TO MONITORING

Amendments made: No. 40, in page 39, line 7, after second "conditions" insert ", however expressed".

No. 41, in page 39, line 20, at end insert—

'( ) In this section references to a sentence of imprisonment include—

(a) a detention and training order,
(b) a sentence of detention in a young offender institution.
(c) a sentence of detention under section 90 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (detention at Her Majesty's Pleasure),
(d) a sentence of detention under section 91 of that Act (detention of offenders under 18 convicted of certain serious offences),
(e) a sentence of custody for life under section 93 or 94 of that Act,

and references to prison shall be construed accordingly.'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 58

RELEASE ON LICENCE ETC: DRUG TESTING REQUIREMENTS

Amendments made: No. 42, in page 40, line 21, after "person" insert "aged 18 or over".

No. 43, in page 40, line 25, after "conditions" insert ", however expressed".

No. 44, in page 40, line 35, at end insert—

'( ) In this section references to a sentence of imprisonment include—

(a) a detention and training order,
(b) a sentence of detention in a young offender institution,
(c) a sentence of detention under section 90 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (detention at Her Majesty's Pleasure),
(d) a sentence of detention under section 91 of that Act (detention of offenders under 18 convicted of certain serious offences),
(e) a sentence of custody for life under section 93 or 94 of that Act,

and references to prison shall be construed accordingly.'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 60

ACCESS TO DRIVER LICENSING RECORDS

Amendments made: No. 45, in page 41, line 18, leave out from "constables" to end of line 19.

No. 46, in page 41, line 26, at end insert—
'( ) Before making any regulations applying in respect of constables in police forces in Scotland, the Secretary of State must, to the extent to which the regulations will so apply, consult the Scottish Ministers'.—[Jane Kennedy.]

Clause 61

FAILURE TO SECURE REGULAR ATTENDANCE AT SCHOOL: INCREASE IN PENALTY

Jackie Ballard: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 41, line 31, leave out clause 61.
If the amendment were accepted—I am ever the optimist—it would lead to the deletion of clause 61, which increases the penalty for failure to secure regular school attendance. It more than doubles the maximum fine, and introduces imprisonment for up to three months.
In Committee, I expressed surprise that the clause had appeared for the first time in this Bill rather than in an education Bill, in which its merits or otherwise in helping parents to ensure school attendance could have been debated by colleagues specialising in education as part of a wider discussion about how to encourage parents to be responsible and responsive when their children are truanting. I hope that the Minister will not caricature my views on the clause, suggesting that I am in favour of truanting or of parents who are irresponsible about the matter. I think that the debate is about the effective way of ensuring that parents carry out their duties in getting their children to school.
It would be much better to debate the clause in an education context than in a criminal justice context. However, it is in this Bill, and I believe that increasing the penalties will not in itself help parents who are struggling to ensure that their children attend school regularly. I also think that it will have a minimal impact on those who could not care less what their children are doing between 9 am and 3.30 pm on school days.
A range of interventions, including parenting projects, home tuition and family support, are much more likely to help than draconian penalties. Many—although not all—families with difficulties, including school attendance, will be poor families with multiple problems. Doubling the fine that can be imposed will simply add to their problems. Using the ultimate deterrent and sending a parent to prison will further fracture dysfunctional families.
In Standing Committee, I asked the Minister what research evidence there was to show that a fine of £2,500 would make an appreciable difference, as opposed to a fine of £2,000 or even £5,000. The Minister had no answer to that question. It seems that the clause has been slipped into a criminal justice Bill to try to avoid the scrutiny of educationists and to enable the Government to claim that they are getting tough on truancy, without any empirical or even anecdotal evidence to show that those particular get-tough measures will help to deal with the problem in any way. They will not, and they may do much harm. That is why we wish the clause to be deleted.

Mr. John Cryer: In Committee, I expressed concerns about clause 55 as it then was; it is now clause 61. The concerns are that increasing the fines for parents of truanting children and, more particularly, jailing them will be counterproductive.
Since the Committee stage, I have contacted several charities concerned with children. They have written back to me to express their reservations about clause 61. For example, the Child Poverty Action Group said, among other things:
I can certainly confirm that we would regard this as a retrograde step. Penalties of this sort, levied upon families on low incomes, seem to be based on the assumption that children will somehow be insulated from the effects of fines paid by their parents—or from the consequences of those fines not being paid. This is manifestly not so and we would hope that, given further reflection and discussion, a less punitive approach might prevail.
NCH Action for Children wrote in similar vein:
We do not think it is helpful to have increased sanctions against parents whose children do not attend school. The reasons why children do not attend school are many and complex and we do not think that increasing the penalties on parents is the most constructive way forward. Indeed we are concerned that this clause, whilst perhaps having a deterrent element, would actually result in more difficulties and problems for families that are already vulnerable and disadvantaged.
Those were the two key responses from the two charities.
That leads me to the question that I raised in Committee. The measure would send parents to jail and put children in care. I have talked to one or two head teachers in my constituency who know children of secondary school age who are regular truants and who have younger brothers and sisters. If the sanction were used by magistrates courts, the patents would be sentenced to three months in prison. The younger children and, for that matter, the older children at secondary school would be taken into care, obviously at a hugely increased cost to the taxpayer. The measure would be counterproductive.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office argued in Committee that the measure would not work that way and that it was mainly a deterrent that would not, in practice, be used by magistrates; but it is not the Minister, me or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department who will be on the bench when cases come up. It may be people who have a particularly vindictive streak. There are magistrates who have vindictive streaks; I have seen them in action. They may choose to use the full sanction of the law and to jail parents for three months at a time.
That is a realistic prospect. In the light of the comments by the charities that I have mentioned and by other charities, if we pass the legislation, we will go against some of the key charities that have the interests of children at heart and that have campaigned for children's rights for a long time. They are clearly dead against the clause going through. There is much to be said for their arguments.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer). Although I did not serve on the Committee, I should like briefly to give a few reasons why I think that the Government's intention to go down this road is misconceived.
The Government could say—I have read the Minister's comments in Committee—that the provision will give magistrates another power that they, in their wisdom, will use only when necessary, and that it will simply expand

the range of options available to them. Although that statement is true, it presumes that it is acceptable or reasonable to imprison parents for three months for failure to secure regular attendance.
In recent debates, the Government have talked about the possibility of imprisoning offenders for one day, for a weekend or for other very short periods. If we really think that we are not getting through to parents on the issue, that length of imprisonment would seem to be much more appropriate as an ultimate sanction. I do not think that it is reasonable to propose a three-month removal of the type of parent who cannot manage to deliver their children to school.
The proposed response is entirely inappropriate and is not supported by any evidence that it is likely to produce a positive outcome. It is also absolutely unhelpful in trying to address the underlying issues.
Earlier in the debate, I cited the example of a relevant constituency case which, entirely coincidentally, occurred only last weekend. On Saturday, a single-parent constituent came to my front door to ask for help on finances, as her benefit cheque had not arrived. In the process of helping her to sort out the matter, I went to her home, where I discovered five children, all of whom are of school age, but one of whom was not going to school. I shall deal with that matter in the usual way. However, the point is that the girl had left in her first year of secondary school because of bullying, and no other suitable school had yet been found that would accept her.
In all my years as a Member of Parliament, my experience has been that a child who does not attend school usually fails to do so because of a problem between that child and the school, and that such problems are usually better resolved by educational welfare officers finding a better school or deciding that it is not appropriate for such children to be in a formal school setting.
Frequently, one of the reasons why parents do not ensure that their children go to school is that they are unhappy with the school. We will not solve that problem by sending those parents to prison. Parents often say to me, "I am sorry, but I am not sending my child to that school. I am not comfortable about that being a satisfactory school. The educational standards are not satisfactory; it has poor discipline; it is too far away. None of the other local children go to that school. There are no community links."
Parents' reasons for not wanting to send their children to a particular school are many and varied. Their concerns should be dealt with in various ways, but not by saying that they should go to prison. Such a response will not get the child into school any better than other actions would.

Mr. John McWilliam: The hon. Gentleman seems to be talking more about the Education Act 1996 than the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill. We are talking about cases in which children who should be at school commit yet another offence. Very often, it is a matter of "yet another" offence, as the children will already be subject to orders under the 1996 Act. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be addressing that issue.

Mr. Hughes: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton was speaking. If he was, he would


have heard her say that the issue would have been dealt with more appropriately in a debate on education legislation. The issue is not about offences committed by children at all, but simply about how we respond, in criminal justice legislation, to cases in which parents do not send their children to school. Our proposal—supported, as the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) said, widely outside the House—is to delete the proposed clause which deals with a person being guilty of an offence if they fail to secure regular attendance of their children or the young person for whom they are responsible. The clause states that the penalty should be increased to a maximum of three months' imprisonment or a fine not exceeding level 4. The Bill proposes to increase both the imprisonment and the fine.
I ask the Government to think seriously about the likelihood and appropriateness of this measure ever being used and to consult more widely about whether this is not absolutely the wrong road to go down. I have never had a single experience where the threat or the actuality of the imprisonment of a parent for a non-attending school child has produced any better result.

Ms Diane Abbott: This feels like one of those clauses that goes through late at night without sufficient debate and which, in retrospect, is seen to be a clear mistake.
I represent a constituency in the east end of London where truancy is a serious problem. Hackney probably has higher truancy than many other areas. I am aware that truancy is serious, as being a truant is one step along the road to being involved in criminal activity. I applaud the Minister's intention to crack down on truancy, and his intention to try to reinforce positive, meaningful and responsible parenthood among parents of all ages. We must be aware of issues relating to responsible parenting and to a lack of parenting skills.
As to the clause, and whether it will achieve the results that Ministers want, I am concerned. The clause applies to parents but, with many truanting children, it is not "parents"—there is a single mother. I cannot see how it can be in the interests of the family unit to send a mother to prison for three months as, invariably, it will not just be one child but others too who will be forced into care as a consequence.
I recently visited Holloway. This country already imprisons far too many women for such offences. We imprison more women as a percentage of the population than any other country in Europe for just this type of offence. A clause in a Bill that must lead inevitably—if it is to be meaningful—to more women going to prison cannot go by unremarked. I applaud the Minister's intentions and motivation, but I do not believe that the clause has been sufficiently thought through.
I cannot believe that it will be in the interests of the truants themselves that their parents run the risk of serving time in prison. Those types of truanting children are very often beyond the control of their parents in any case. I wonder how effective the new clause will be in practice.

Mr. Dawson: I was not going to speak on this subject in Committee and was provoked into it, and the same is the case tonight. I have worked on truancy and school

non-attendance issues for a long time and I do not buy a lot of the statements that have been made in the last 10 minutes.
This is a complex, distressing and difficult problem. At the heart of it are children's rights to have an education, and parents' duties to ensure that they receive it. People have referred to many of the factors that make truancy a problem. Of course there can be real and genuine difficulties between parents and schools. Of course there are millions of children with special educational needs; there are often educational needs that go unnoticed, unassessed or unrecognised for many years. We need to attend to such factors. Some teenagers, but often younger children, are palpably beyond the control of parents. Parents who do their absolute darnedest to get their children to go to school need the appropriate support.
There are a thousand aspects to the issue of school truancy and it is extremely difficult to tackle, especially when it has gone on for some time, but some people do not seem to recognise that there is also sheer parental bloody-mindedness. There are people who have no interest whatever in getting their children to attend school and will use any excuse to avoid ensuring that they get the education that they need.
One can respond to that through care proceedings. There is nothing more fundamental than breaking up families, but the clause gives us the ability to bring home to recalcitrant parents the true seriousness of the situation. If the threat of a serious fine or imprisonment is enough to bring parents to court or make them consider the issues seriously, that is a useful element.

Jackie Ballard: What evidence does the hon. Gentleman have that parents who could not care less whether their children go to school will be influenced to change their behaviour by a fine of £2,500, when they are not influenced by a fine of £1,000?

Mr. Dawson: So much depends on individual circumstances. The threat of imprisonment is a potent factor, although I sincerely believe that it would not be carried out. The spectre that people conjure up—of parents being hauled off to jail in great numbers, while the children are taken into care and the whole family explodes—is simply not credible. The circumstances in which such a tactic would be used are comparatively rare, but it is an important element in the armoury that is available.

Mr. John Cryer: My hon. Friend says that he believes that imprisonment will not be used, but it will not be he or I on the bench making the decision. If it will not be used, why put it on the statute book?

Mr. Dawson: The uncertainty about whether it will be used is important. All that I have to back this up is the experience of dealing with parents in this position—and the only way of getting them to face up to the difficulties was by laying down an extremely hard line about the consequences not to their children but to them if there was no change.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have a simple question. Does the hon. Gentleman think that it would be acceptable for a single parent of several children to be sent to prison for


between one and three months because one of the children was truanting? If not, he should not support a proposal to give magistrates courts the power to do just that.

Mr. Dawson: We have to consider the individual circumstances. I do not believe that the sort of situation that the hon. Gentleman outlined earlier would be dealt with under the existing legislation. We are talking about people who need help and support to deal with the complex problems of truancy. The provision will not necessarily apply to any of the people with whom hon. Members have been in touch, let alone all of them, but my experience tells me that it is useful to have it as a threat to hang over some parents, in some circumstances.

11 pm

Mr. John McDonnell: I, too, have some experience of child care: for 13 years, I was the house father of a small family unit children's home. Sometimes it was difficult to get the children to school.
The Government must recognise that legislation, once introduced, will be used. The provision allowing courts to imprison people for a lengthy period seems draconian, and there is no use arguing that it will be used in only a few cases. If it is used in only one case, a family will be broken up and children will go into care. We must make sure that the provision will have some effect on truancy.
However, all hon. Members know why families do not send their children to school. It happens largely when the system has failed both parents and children. The cycle of deprivation means that parents do not appreciate the importance of education or of sending their children to school. However it has been noted already that other legislation—education Acts and social legislation—provide that children can be taken into care.
In this respect, the Bill is worse than a sledgehammer used to crack a nut. It is a very uncreative way to tackle a problem with which most hon. Members are familiar. This month, I have had discussions in my constituency with the organisation Homestart, and I have been involved with groups of head teachers in establishing a truancy centre. I have also been working with social services officers on individual cases to try to build support in the community and families, and ensure that children are sent to school.
The introduction of a power to imprison parents who refuse to send their children to school cannot be ameliorated by saying that it will be used only as a last option and probably not at all. Can we have confidence in the courts that the provision will not be used? I know the local magistrates in Hayes and Uxbridge, and I am sure that many of those wonderful people would not touch the power with a bargepole. However, I am not so confident about magistrates elsewhere.
I want the powers in any legislation that I am involved with to be so valid that they are used. In this instance, the Government are flying in the face of the experience of all hon. Members. The work that we do in ensuring that parents send their children to school must be based on an understanding of families' problems, not on retribution.
I gave up the opportunity of visiting a constituent in prison today. I wanted to deal with clause 61, although I did not realise that we would come to it so very late at night. I am amazed that the clause has been included in the Bill, as it is so incongruent with the other provisions.

It seems that the Government have taken another opportunity to pander to readers of the Daily Mail by cracking down on parents who do not send their children to school.
Will my right hon. Friend the Minister say who has been consulted on this matter? What support has been found among teaching organisations, social work professionals and others? What is the international experience of imposing on parents fines and prison sentences of this length? More creative means of tackling the problem exist. We cannot want to deprive children of their parents simply because the system has failed to inculcate in families the benefits of sending children to school.

Mr. Lidington: Somewhat unusually, I find myself in considerable agreement in this debate with the views expressed not by only the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), but by several Labour Members. I do not want to repeat all the arguments that have been discussed at some length already, but it seems that if a fine is to be a deterrent, one has to assume that the person subject to the fine will feel that they have a reasonable prospect of paying it. Otherwise, imposing a fine becomes completely meaningless.
In my constituency experience, I can think of cases in which parents of children who have been persistent truants are entirely reliant on social security benefits. I find it difficult to see how an increased fine could be a real deterrent in such cases when the prospect of it ever being paid is minimal.
I also agree with the points made by other critics of the clause about the power to imprison. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) said that it was fine to have the power to imprison because we would never want to use it, an argument that I found unpersuasive. It is worth having a power on the statute book only if our intention, as legislators, is that in some circumstances at least that power should be exercised by the courts. That would mean that we would have to address the issues raised most strongly by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
This is not a party political point, but we already know that local authority children's homes have a thoroughly bad general record in caring for people if we measure that in terms of the number of people who have been in local authority care who subsequently get into trouble with the courts, the number of young offenders in institutions such as the one in my constituency or the number of such people who go to prison when they are adults. If at all possible, I believe that it is better to keep the family together with the parents caring for their children. The idea that parents should be taken away and locked up, and that the local authority would somehow step in and put everything right by taking the children into care is at odds with experience in this country hitherto.
I hope that even at this stage, the Government will think afresh about the clause and bring forward changes in another place.

Mr. Boateng: We have had a good and extensive debate about a very serious issue. All right hon. and hon. Members will be concerned to get this measure right and to send a clear and unequivocal message from the Chamber.
We should first understand where the Government are coming from in introducing the clause, and why we oppose amendment No. 6. I well understand where the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) is coming from. She has been very frank and upfront from the outset about her opposition to this measure, and she makes her case seriously. She is right to say that we must avoid the tendency to caricature one another's responses on issues such as this. I certainly have never caricatured her response as in any way being on the side of the truant, and I see that she is good enough to affirm that. Similarly, I would be grateful if she would not caricature our coming forward with this proposal, at this time, in the context of this piece of legislation, as being an attempt somehow to avoid serious scrutiny by educationists. The reverse is the case.
This measure was first referred to in our consultation document "Tackling Truancy Together", which was announced by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment last September/October. In response to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), there was an opportunity for organisations to respond. The organisations that responded were largely educational, although magistrates responded too, and were largely in favour of the proposal. I will write to my hon. Friend with a detailed list of the organisations that responded and outline what they said.
The measure has been carefully thought through, and has been the subject of consultation. It is in no sense out of place within criminal justice legislation, because we have to be clear what we are talking about here. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said, many such young people are at risk not only of losing their education, but of offending.
There is a direct link between the subject matter of the Bill and this clause. In government, we have shown—more than any of our predecessors—that we are trying to develop and establish a holistic approach to the matter. That has led us to fund generously organisations such as Homestart, but we realise that the issue cannot be left to teachers alone. It requires input from education welfare officers, from social workers and, indeed, from the police.
As I listened to my hon. Friend, I recalled a visit to east London when I discussed with police and social workers in Newham the joint patrols carried out by the police and education welfare and social services officers on the streets of the area. That is precisely the sort of joined-up criminal justice, education, welfare and care approach to truancy that we want to promote.
The provision should not be seen as one response alone—as a tunnel vision approach. It should be seen as one of the building blocks that we need to set up in order to provide an effective response to the problem of truancy. It stands alongside parenting classes and parenting orders. Voices were raised against parenting orders, but, when we piloted them, they were found to be extremely successful. They brought parents to court who otherwise would have continued to avoid their responsibilities; the orders obliged them to confront the consequences of their neglect. Those parents were directed towards help and support to ensure that they addressed the needs of their children and to overcome their own deficits as parents.
What does the clause do? Yes, it raises the fine above its current level, where it is the same as that for non-payment of a television licence—that is equated with not ensuring that a child attends school. It does not seem unreasonable to say that treating in the same way the non-payment of television licences and the failure to ensure school attendance does not reflect the seriousness of that neglect of a child. By raising the fine level, we send out a message about the seriousness of the offence.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer), of course, magistrates will continue to have to take into account the financial situation of the parent when setting the fine. There is no question that someone in receipt of benefits would be required to pay the maximum fine, but it is right that the level should be raised to demonstrate the seriousness with which we take the offence. It is more serious than not paying a television licence.
The question of intention was raised: what do we plan to get out of this provision for the child? We believe that we must be able to compel the parents of truants to attend court. By making the offence punishable by imprisonment, we are ensuring that parents are required to attend court or risk arrest. Without that provision, we shall not have the power to compel them to do so—backed up by a power of arrest. That is why the offence has to be made custodial. The proposal was introduced not out of a desire to lock up large numbers of parents, but out of a desire to require parents to attend court when their children do not attend school. The Government believe that that is eminently reasonable.

Mr. McDonnell: The point has been made in the debate that the power might be used infrequently. What assessment have the Government made of the number of parents who would be imprisoned as a result of the introduction of the power?

Mr. Boateng: I shall come to that point. The power will be available to the courts and we do not expect it to be used widely or often. However, it will be on the statute book to be used in the circumstances that justify it. My hon. Friend might ask me what those circumstances are; I do not expect its use to be justified, except in the most extreme cases, against a single parent with other children who might end up in care. However, when two parents have continually and habitually neglected the interests of the child, have failed to address their responsibilities and have failed to attend court, it is not unreasonable to say that parents have responsibilities as well as rights. Those responsibilities cannot be swept aside just because they are inconvenient.

Mr. McDonnell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Boateng: No, I shall not give way again. My hon. Friend has made his point; he does not need to labour it.
With the rights of a parents core responsibilities. This clause is designed to act as a wake-up call for parents who persistently refuse to accept their responsibilities.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister will understand the position as well as I do, so does he accept the point made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington)?


When families rely entirely on state benefits, a court is more likely to be driven to the imprisonment conclusion, because a fine would not be a sanction on the parents. Therefore, the power in the clause is much more likely to be used to the disadvantage of the most disadvantaged rather than for the punishment of those who have the resources and the ability to respond.

Mr. Boateng: If that were the case, our sentencing process on fines would be nonsense. The hon. Gentleman might think that it is, but we do not. When an offence is sufficiently serious to warrant imprisonment, we believe that it is right that there should be an alternative. In this case, the alternative to imprisonment is a community penalty. expect the fine to be levelled at a rate that is commensurate with an individual's ability to pay.

Mr. McDonnell: On every provision, including the parental orders, at least an estimate was given of the numbers who would come before the court as a result of it. Can my right hon. Friend tell us the estimate of the numbers who will come to court, the numbers who will be imprisoned and the number of children who will go into care as a result of this clause?

Mr. Boateng: I have answered that point and I do not intend to cover the same ground again.
The measure was introduced after consultation that has produced, in many instances, a favourable response. It is a reasoned and proportionate response to a real and pressing problem. For that reason, I urge the House to reject the amendment should the hon. Member for Taunton decide to put it to a vote.

Jackie Ballard: I am pleased that the amendment has produced a good and useful debate and I am grateful to Labour Members who spoke to it. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) was the notable exception, but I wish that many more of them had made similar points in Committee. We might then have been successful in deleting the clause at that stage.
Many hon. Members have referred to their own experiences of dealing with families with difficulties and of truanting children. Just for the record, I have also had similar experiences in the past as a social worker, teacher and school governor. I have had similar experiences to those of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), but I have come to a different conclusion. The hon. Member for Hornchurch made a good point about the impact on children in families that already have difficulties in coping of increased fines and potential imprisonment: in punishing the parent, it is inevitable that the child is also punished.
I tabled the amendment to allow for debate and I know that the Minister has heard the concerns expressed, especially by Labour Back Benchers. Even the Labour Back Bencher who spoke against the amendment seemed to hope that the ultimate sanction of imprisonment would never be used. I hope that the Minister and the Government will have second thoughts on clause 61 in the other place. I shall also be interested to see the responses to the consultation document, especially from education welfare officers, social workers, teachers and others involved professionally with truanting. The Minister said that a number of those who responded

supported the clause, but he did not tell us whether a majority had done so or how they broke down into groups. That information would be interesting and I hope that the Government will consult further with those who may have missed the initial consultation document.
The question is whether the increased penalty will reduce truanting—an aim that all of us wish to achieve—or help children and their families. In the hope that the Government will have a change of mind before the Bill reaches the other place, I shall withdraw the amendment, but we will—if necessary—pursue it in the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Boateng]

Mr. Hawkins: I shall be brief, given that the Minister has moved Third Reading formally. However, it is important to make a couple of points. We have sought to adopt a constructive attitude to the Bill, because we recognise that parts of it may be helpful. We had good debates in Committee, as I am sure the Minister and other hon. Members would agree, and we have had constructive and mostly good-natured debates this evening on such important issues as domestic violence and drugs.
It is fair to say that all parties have contributed to the constructive approach. The debate on amendment No. 6 was a good example of a genuine difference of view within the Labour party. Indeed, at one stage the Minister faced an unaccustomed amount of friendly fire from behind him.
We need to recognise that the Government have described a completely different picture in relation to curfew releases in terms of the serious offences committed by those who have been released from what was originally intended by the members of the Home Affairs Committee. If the members of the Committee, of whom I was then one, had known what the Government had in mind, their report would have been very different. It was never envisaged by the Opposition, by members of the Committee or by other right hon. and hon. Members, when they considered the Government's proposals, that they would mean the early release of six attempted murderers; 53 people convicted of manslaughter; 2,767 people convicted of drug dealing and trafficking; 1,556 people convicted of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm; 811 robbers; 1,887 burglars; 23 offenders convicted of cruelty to children; 34 offenders convicted of making threats to kill; and 126 offenders convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. That is a travesty of a policy on the part of a Government who claimed they would be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. The ordinary law-abiding citizens of this country will be horrified by those figures.
The situation is especially ironic given that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) pointed out, those are the very offences in respect of which the Home Secretary proposes to apply his revised immigration rule 320(18) to keep serious convicted criminals out of the country—the so-called Mike Tyson rule. The Home Secretary's own consultation document


describes such crimes as serious offences and states that protection of the citizens of this country from those who are convicted of such offences overseas is essential and appropriate. It is impossible for the Government logically to argue that the British public must be protected from foreigners who commit such offences, barring them from the country, at the same time as they let out of jail on early release thousands of British criminals who have committed the same crimes. That is the Bill's most significant weakness. We hope that the Government will consider the matter further.
Ministers have been reasonable and said that they will retain an open mind on several other issues debated in Committee and on Report. One matter that we have not be able to address on Report and on which I wish to touch during our Third Reading debate is the new name of the welfare service. The Government have called it the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, but, in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, said:
We are open to suggestions. We have not thus far been able to produce a better title than the one before us today. If the hon. Gentleman were to make further suggestions, other than the one in the amendment, we would be prepared to consider them.—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 11 April 2000; c. 109.]
That was a fair concession. The hon. Lady will have noticed another suggestion on the amendment paper, albeit not selected for debate. It gets around some of the problems mentioned by Ministers when responding to our original suggestion, in that we have not replicated one of the constituent parts of the new service, but have come up with another title again. Even if that is not the right title, I am sure that the hon. Lady recognises that we are attempting to come up with a constructive alternative that will avert the danger of ridicule—which is a present danger in connection with the Government's chosen title.
The hon. Lady wrote to me and other members of the Standing Committee on other points that cropped up in debate. Her letter dated 9 May dealt with representations that Ministers had received about the intention to change the names of probation, community service and combination orders, and it enables us to contrast her remarks and those made earlier this evening made by the Minister of State, Home Office. The Parliamentary Secretary wrote:
most representations were in favour of maintaining the status quo.
All along, we have argued in favour of keeping community service orders and probation orders. The hon. Lady continued:
the majority of these were from within the probation service.
So much for the anecdotal evidence cited by the Minister of State, Home Office: the majority of the representations to the Government originated within the probation service, exactly as the trade union NAPO said. The Parliamentary Secretary added:
These are professionals who are already very familiar and comfortable with the language,
but she then said that the terms were not familiar to the wider public—"shurely shome mishtake," as a well-known periodical would say. There is a difference of views even between the two Ministers present tonight.
Weaknesses remain in the Government's case. I have no doubt that the Government will be forced to concede some of our points during the debates in another place.
We will not, however, oppose Third Reading, because we believe that the Bill contains sufficient that is valuable and a useful addition to the criminal justice system.

Mr. Dawson: It is sadly typical that in their last contribution to the debate on the Bill, the Opposition have concentrated on reworking the argument about the name of the service, trying to draw a smokescreen over their failures in 18 years during which crime doubled and they made a hash of the entire criminal justice system.
The Bill will give us a national probation service with a new agenda for dealing with criminal behaviour and assisting the rehabilitation of offenders.
The extremely important element of the Bill, which has received no attention so far today and which received little attention on Second Reading, is the establishment in chapter II of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. I regard that as a hopeful development. Across the country, there is a manifest concern about the position of children in private law proceedings—not criminal justice or public law—when parents separate and divorce. Complex and distressing situations occur, and subtle but extremely serious issues of child protection can arise. Private law deals with issues such as residence and contact, and specific steps and concerns that might relate to individual children in extraordinarily difficult circumstances.
It is a credit to the Government that they have brought together three distinct services—the guardian ad litem and reporting officer service, the court welfare services and the Official Solicitor. Those services are to be melded together, setting high standards of social work practice in a crucial area of policy.
I tabled no amendments on Report, but I moved several in Committee. I was delighted to hear from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary a solid commitment to children's rights and their place at the heart of the new service, and an undertaking that the service would attain high standards of practice and that there would be appropriate training and professional development activity to allow that.
The Government also gave a commitment to the involvement of social services inspection in a form of partnership with the magistrates courts advisory service. We all received a letter about that at the end of the Committee stage. It is extremely important that there should be independent inspection based on high standards of social work practice in such an important service.
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service can be a powerful force for advocacy, giving children and young people access to effective and independent representation. I have high hopes of the service. The new organisation could be a strong force for the benefit of children and a flagship for profoundly important family policy. I wish CAFCASS well and trust that it will get the on-going support, resourcing and commitment that it undoubtedly deserves.

Jackie Ballard: The Bill is probably the least controversial Home Office Bill this Session. It has been given proper and constructive scrutiny in Committee and on Report. I shall therefore speak briefly. At this time of night there is no football match throughout which I have to speak.
Liberal Democrats broadly welcome the Bill, especially the clauses relating to the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, to which the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) referred. I also welcome the further enhancement of powers to protect children in part II. Some useful work was done in Committee, especially on getting on record the key role of the probation service in the rehabilitation of offenders, about which we had a long debate.
However, although we broadly welcome the Bill, we have serious anxieties about a few clauses. Clause 42 deals with drug abstinence orders, but does not provide for guaranteeing treatment throughout England and Wales.
Clause 52 was not discussed on Report. It provides for testing people in police detention, and gives police the powers to test people who are charged with specific offences for the presence of class. A drugs. I expressed anxiety in Committee that that could introduce by the back door a new offence of use of drugs. The Minister assured us that that was not the case. When the Home Secretary first announced the provision, he said that it was his intention to introduce testing on arrest rather than on charge. The final provision in the clause leaves the door open for the Home Secretary to extend testing to those who have not been charged. That would have serious human rights consequences. It would also be administratively difficult for police officers to cope with the increased numbers of people to be tested when they went into the police station.
I also oppose clause 61, about which we had an useful debate earlier. I am sure that it will be discussed again in another place. I hope that the other place will consider those outstanding matters in detail.
We shall not oppose the Bill. Labour Members who have come to the Chamber late at night will be disappointed to hear that neither Opposition party will oppose the Bill and force a vote. The measure has already benefited from the scrutiny of this House; I am sure that it will benefit from further scrutiny in another place.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

SOCIAL SECURITY

That the draft Social Security and Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.

COMPANIES

That the draft Local Authority (Stocks and Bonds) (Amendment) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 12th May, be approved.

COMPANIES

That the draft Uncertificated Securities (Amendment) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 12th May, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 22nd May, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to.

COMMITTEES

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to Committees.
Ordered,

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS

That Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson be added to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee.

NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS

That Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and Mr. William Thompson be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITIONS

Hunting

Valerie Davey (Bristol, West): I am pleased to present the petition of Bristol Anti-Blood Sports to the House. Signatures were collected in Bristol and neighbouring constituencies and totalled 28,475. I am sure that everyone who signed the petition will have been encouraged by the statement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary today.
The petition states:
The Petition of Bristol Anti-Blood Sports
Declares its total opposition to all forms of hunting with hounds.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Home Office to take urgent action to bring about the end of this so-called sport, and this unnecessary slaughter of animals.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of some 420,000 decent, law-abiding, mainly country people, many of whom live in my constituency. They call on the Government to recognise the importance of tolerance in a modern society by rejecting legislation to criminalise hunting or other country activities. Such legislation would infringe the liberties of many people throughout the United Kingdom, destroy rural jobs, reduce people's income, seriously harm


the United Kingdom rural landscape, diminish rural community life and divert valuable parliamentary time from much needed Government measures to address the increasing problems that face the poor and the excluded in rural and urban constituencies.
The petition states:
The Petition of Citizens of the United Kingdom
Declares that in a modern, tolerant democracy, legislation to ban fox hunting is inappropriate.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Home Office not to introduce such legislation.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
To lie upon the Table.

Endangered species

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Mr. Geraint Davies: In 1970 there were twice as many skylarks in Britain as there are now, four times as many turtle doves and 10 times as many tree sparrows. Many of the reasons for the devastation of much of our wildlife are unknown, although agricultural intensification, decreased ploughing, fewer hedgerows, the impact of the common agricultural policy, pollution and pesticides have been cited as causes for the chronic decline of our natural heritage. The number of water voles has decreased by some 90 per cent. in the last seven years; perhaps Ratty from "The Wind in the Willows" will be extinct within 10 years.
You, Mr. Haselhurst, might ask, "Who really cares?", and I would say that many millions of people care about this issue. I am unusual in that I have been involved in environmental movements and I started a business that contributes to the continuation of the endangered loggerhead turtle by funding a hatchery. It contributes also to the protection of the endangered Lammergeyer bearded vulture. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has more members than the Labour party, and the alliance of conservation groups, including Friends of the Earth, the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Woodland Trust, has millions of members. Almost everyone, if asked whether they care about the future of the beloved sparrow, would say yes.
The Countryside and Rights of Way Bill is essentially about the enjoyment of our countryside and its protection for future generations, as well as the protection of its biodiversity. Rights of access bring with them responsibilities for the protection of the countryside and indigenous species. Much has been done in biodiversity action plans, albeit on a voluntary basis, to help that process.
At the Rio summit in 1992 the biodiversity convention was signed by 150 countries, including the United Kingdom. That gave rise, in 1994, to the UK biodiversity action plan, and we now have in place 391 species plans, such as those for the water vole, the skylark, the tree sparrow and the greater horseshoe bat. There are also 45 habitat plans, such as the one for ancient hedgerows, which house endangered species. Those plans have been challenged by new CAP regulations on the size of fields that are eligible for grants. Some hedgerows are threatened but some are protected, as are lowland heathlands and upland oak woods.
That process is organised by a partnership of councils, conservationists, non-governmental organisations, the business community and well meaning members of the public. They have worked well in many cases to help to protect various species and habitats, but that is not true in all cases. Being ethnically Welsh, I have some empathy for Wales. The Countryside Council for Wales has devised 222 biodiversity action plans, but 120 of those are not being progressed because there are no funds. The simple reason for the absence of those funds is that biodiversity action plans do not have the legal status and teeth to gain the statutory priority that would provide them with that funding.
Biodiversity in Wales is obviously important to people in England and throughout the United Kingdom—we share our natural heritage and have a duty to protect it—but there is a strange situation in London. The only person in Britain with a statutory duty to protect wildlife through biodiversity action plans is the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who is Mayor of London. That obligation is provided by section 352 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which says that the mayor has a statutory duty to publish a biodiversity plan for London. Therefore, he has the right to call for adequate resources to protect biodiversity in our capital against the forces of commercial development, be they retail, traffic or council economic or planning gain.
I would say, Mr. Haselhurst, that what is good enough for London should be good—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman has made that slip twice. The correct term is Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Davies: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I suggest that what is good enough for London is good enough for the rest of the nation, in terms of biodiversity and the value that that has for us all. Indeed, that applies not only to the adult population but to my young family—daughters aged five and three—which looks with glee at sparrows and other wildlife that is perhaps endangered by pollution and pesticide. Like me, my family does not want a future in which such birds and others are systematically and chronically eliminated. However action may not be taken on other threatened aspects of biodiversity as people are less emotionally inclined to them.
There is a system of sorts in place and we do not want to displace the voluntary and partnership system. However, I suggest that statutory underpinning would not do so. It would ensure that the means of change—largely through the voluntary and charitable sectors—could be strengthened rather than displaced. Time is running out for certain species in certain areas, cash is needed and there are glaring regional differences. I have referred to the Countryside Council for Wales, but there are many more examples of the need to take action to fulfil our international biodiversity obligations.
Part of that process constitutes the second part of the debate—recognition of local sites of particular interest and incorporating our biodiversity priorities in local authorities' planning framework. As well as some 5,000 sites of special scientific interest, there are many thousands more wildlife sites of special interest, only half of which are properly looked after. I call for a duty to be put on local authorities to establish a system of common standards by identifying such sites and taking them into account in the planning process. Such sites can benefit from agri-environmental grants, but the issue here is the public interest rather than the commercial benefit of the site owner.
London already has a voluntary wildlife site system in place and all but two London boroughs—I know something about this, having been leader of Croydon council—use a system developed by the London Ecology Unit whereby wildlife sites are adopted in the unitary development plans for individual authorities. There is an opportunity for all London to have the biodiversity action plan underpinned by such sites, among other things,

so that vulnerability to developers would be reduced. A local authority would be duty bound to take account of the impact on those sites when considering development applications. Therefore, the forces of scrutiny and public focus would help to counter-balance the enormous commercial pressure for redevelopment on sites in London. That is happening. It has been suggested that local sites should be incorporated more widely than London so that our wildlife can be preserved.
I know that the Government are sympathetic to those ideas. I know that they have discussed biodiversity action plans and local sites during the Committee stage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. I hope very much that, on the basis of that discussion, the discussion we are having tonight and the wider discussion throughout the British public—which, by means of extensive media, is being transmitted to millions of members of various organisations, such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—the Government will consider tabling amendments, perhaps when we are discussing legislation from the House of Lords, aimed at protecting endangered species. I feel that this is something that the public expect and deserve—as do our many species.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) has raised an important issue. As he says, we debated it during the Committee stage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. I said then that the Government were happy to consider, although without commitment, the question of a form of statutory underpinning for the biodiversity action plan process on local wildlife sites. No doubt we shall return to the subject later this week, when the Bill is debated on Report. In the meantime, it may be helpful for me to remind the House of a number of aspects of the biodiversity process, some of which my hon. Friend has mentioned.
Through an enormous effort of co-ordination, led by the United Kingdom biodiversity group—a partnership involving Government Departments and devolved administrations, local government, conservation and land management organisations, business interests and nature conservation agencies—we now have, as my hon. Friend said, 391 species action plans and 45 habitat action plans. That is part of our commitment to implement the United Nations convention on biological diversity, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory.
The priority species and habitats selected for attention are those which are most at risk of disappearance or decline. Each plan identifies the current threats, and specifies the action to be taken and the agencies—public, private and voluntary—that will take it. Specific time-limited targets are also set.
I am pleased to say that there is a special plan for the water vole, in which my hon. Friend takes a particular interest. The organisations taking the lead in implementing the action plans have just completed a comprehensive reporting exercise that indicates progress so far, and the obstacles that remain. Although we still need to complete analysis of all the data, it is interesting to note that the water vole action plan suggests a continued loss of populations, but has also found previously unrecorded sites. Although populations are still


declining and will take some years to recover, the overall rate of decline may not be as severe as was first thought. We cannot drop our guard, but progress is being made.
My hon. Friend said that resources were a problem. Resources are always a problem in almost any area one cares to name, but implementation of the biodiversity action plan has been a priority for my Department's funding of English Nature. We have given it additional grant of more than £11 million over two years, of which about £3.3 million was to be directed specifically towards implementation of the biodiversity action plan. Some of that is given in grants to voluntary bodies which, as I have said, are significant partners in the process. Because many of the plans will be implemented through agri-environment schemes, the additional £1 billion over seven years announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the end of last year, which will be directed to such schemes, will give an enormous boost to the biodiversity process. The application of the schemes is being increasingly targeted towards biodiversity priorities.
I cannot comment directly on the situation in Wales, to which my hon. Friend has referred, as the funding of the Countryside Council for Wales is a matter for the National Assembly. However, I understand that the council is taking action on all those species and habitat action plans on which it is identified as a lead partner and which are particularly important in Wales. That is a pattern similar to English Nature's priorities. There have also been increases in the gofal, the Assembly's agri-environment initiative.
I assure hon. Members that, throughout, Government, Departments have agreed to focus on biodiversity through the adoption of a biodiversity checklist. That is a means by which Departments will consider the implications for biodiversity and for the management of their own estates of their policies and programmes, and report annually in the green Ministers' report.
Local government plays an important part. We are keen to see local biodiversity action plans extended throughout the whole of England. At present, they cover only about half the country's area and are patchy in their quality and reach. We will in many cases rely on those action plans to help us to deliver national targets. More effort is needed for two-way communication between the players at national and local levels.
The question posed by my hon. Friend is whether any of that would be better or more effective if statutory bodies were under a legal obligation to deliver. That is what the Government are considering in the context of amendments that have been tabled to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. In deciding the way forward, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and I certainly do not want to put at risk the successful voluntary partnerships that have already grown up around the biodiversity process.
My hon. Friend mentions the question of placing a duty on local authorities to adopt and to maintain a system of local wildlife sites. Again, we have undertaken to consider that in the context of amendments that have been tabled to the Bill. I am well aware of the importance of local wildlife sites which are not SSSIs. Local authorities already have statutory powers to establish local nature

reserves and to collaborate closely with the wildlife trusts to identify and to help to manage other sites of local conservation importance.
That is why my Department set up a local sites review group with a broad range of representatives from central and local government, statutory agencies, sectoral interests and voluntary conservation organisations. The group considered the identification, protection and management of local sites. There was no clear consensus on the issue of a statutory basis for local wildlife sites, but there was a large degree of consensus on many other issues—for example, a clear framework for the identification of sites, associated support and advice and funding.
I want to put the debate in the context of the enormous wildlife conservation measures that the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill already promotes and which have been widely welcomed. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government have given priority in the Bill to providing for better protection and management of SSSIs—some of our finest and most precious areas for wildlife.
Four thousand or so of those sites have been designated by English Nature. It comes as no surprise that the majority of the biological SSSIs contain habitats identified as priorities under the biodiversity action plan. However, the conservation status of those sites needs improving. Part III of the Bill builds on existing provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, introducing a number of fundamentally new and enhanced measures.
Most significant is the fact that the agencies will be able to refuse consent for damaging operations. They will be able to deal with the more significant problems arising from neglect and poor management through improvements to their powers of entry to land and compulsory purchase. Increased penalties for damage and a new offence of intentional or reckless damage by other persons should send a clear message that damage to those precious sites is wholly unacceptable. Public bodies should lead by example. They will therefore, for the first time, be under a specific duty to further the conservation and enhancement of SSSIs.
A revision of planning policy guidance note 9, on nature conservation, will complement the strengthened regime in the Bill's provisions and deal with biodiversity in the wider countryside. Current legislation protecting threatened species wherever they exist is strong and has done much to further their conservation. However, it can make a real difference only if the laws are effectively enforced, and if the penalties for breaking the law are meaningful and provide a deterrent.
Wildlife crime is lucrative and increasingly well organised. Hence the Bill introduces tougher penalties for wildlife offences, including the option of a prison sentence of up to six months for such offences. We are also increasing fine levels, so that criminals could be looking not only at a jail sentence, but, on top of that, a fine of up to £5,000. My hon. Friend will be aware of all that because, like me, he served in Committee on the Bill.

Mr. Davies: Will my hon. Friend consider sympathetically the idea that the Bill should enable the prosecution not only of companies, but of directors who cause damage on those sites? Will the Government also


consider allowing actions to be brought not only through the Crown Prosecution Service, but directly by individuals?

Mr. Mullin: I cannot immediately recall whether the House will be considering any amendments to that effect in the near future. However, if there are such amendments, I am sure that they will be given due consideration.
The Bill strengthens police powers in a number of ways, including powers to require samples to be taken from wildlife specimens for DNA analysis.
Taken together, the actions clearly demonstrate the Government's determination to enhance the legal protection of wildlife in England and Wales. Whatever decision is made on whether to underpin biodiversity action plans in statute, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the Government are taking quite significant action to ensure the future of our natural heritage.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Twelve midnight.